# California embodies left-wing misery



## P@triot

California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?

Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


----------



## P@triot

The state sure loves their sexual assaults and sexual offenders...

Another Groping Allegation Against 'Buttman' Affleck. Does This Spell Doom For 'Justice League'?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth




----------



## miketx

Queer heaven.


----------



## whitehall

The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

miketx said:


> Queer heaven.


I don't mind queers (not that there's anything wrong with that).  It's the militant commie queers that bug me.  Then again, any commie bugs me, so I don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.


----------



## Timmy

So what state is better ?  Name two .


----------



## miketx

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


Texas and Texas.


----------



## miketx

whitehall said:


> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?


The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:



 

A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.


----------



## Timmy

miketx said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
Click to expand...


Supply and demand .  People want to live in California .  Jobs pay more in cali . That's why housing prices are high.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


I can name 49


----------



## P@triot

Progressives continue to treat women as sexual objects to be used and abused...


> I get to rape beautiful women


Another Hollywood star is under fire for his past. Here’s the video of what he did.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Jobs pay more in cali


Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.

Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.


----------



## Mr Natural

P@triot said:


> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.



A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!

Do you know nothing at all about economics?


----------



## Mr Natural

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .




Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.


----------



## BrokeLoser

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



But, but, but...Silicon Valley, the Pacific Ocean...but, but, but...GDP!



Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .



Better? You can't be serious? 
Any state with fewer Mexicans, fewer Blacks and fewer Liberals...coincidence?
But you probably don't want the whole truth and nothing but the truth do you? This is the kind of truth that causes you to cry RACIST, roll up in the fetal position and need a shower...it scares you.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Mr Clean said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
Click to expand...


What about Hawaii...Hawaii is awesome...right?
*California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients.*
Note that Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....also note all three are blue states. Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.
However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state.


----------



## miketx

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
Click to expand...

Your claim is just more regressive smoke and bullshit.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Mr Clean said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
Click to expand...


Most LefTards would say: 
"Any state where stuffing my penis in a mans ass could be considered cool, any state where a deranged man in a dress can shit next to teenage girls, the state that rains down the most free shit to its bottom feeders, any state that steals from good quality, hard working Americans to fund as many illegal Wetbacks as possible.


----------



## miketx

BrokeLoser said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most LefTards would say:
> "Any state where stuffing my penis in a mans ass could be considered cool, any state where a deranged man in a dress can shit next to teenage girls, the state that rains down the most free shit to its bottom feeders, any state that steals from good quality, hard working Americans to fund as many illegal Wetbacks as possible.
Click to expand...

California?


----------



## bodecea

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


More California Envy.

What is the crime level for other STDs?   Felony or Misdemeanor?


----------



## bodecea

Mr Clean said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
Click to expand...

I love both....having been raised in the first (Upstate) and made the 2nd my home (thanks to the military).


----------



## BrokeLoser

miketx said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most LefTards would say:
> "Any state where stuffing my penis in a mans ass could be considered cool, any state where a deranged man in a dress can shit next to teenage girls, the state that rains down the most free shit to its bottom feeders, any state that steals from good quality, hard working Americans to fund as many illegal Wetbacks as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California?
Click to expand...


BINGO....you win!
Haha


----------



## BrokeLoser

bodecea said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love both....having been raised in the first (Upstate) and made the 2nd my home (thanks to the military).
Click to expand...


Haha...what a surprise...another twisted whack-job "Loves" Loon York and Mexifornia.....so weird.


----------



## bodecea

BrokeLoser said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love both....having been raised in the first (Upstate) and made the 2nd my home (thanks to the military).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...what a surprise...another twisted whack-job "Loves" Loon York and Mexifornia.....so weird.
Click to expand...

When have you been to either place.   BTW...the area of NY where I am from, Western NY, is heavily Republican.  The county in CA I live in, Northern San Diego Co., is heavily Republican.   But I bet you are too ignorant to have known that.


----------



## BrokeLoser

bodecea said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love both....having been raised in the first (Upstate) and made the 2nd my home (thanks to the military).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha...what a surprise...another twisted whack-job "Loves" Loon York and Mexifornia.....so weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you been to either place.   BTW...the area of NY where I am from, Western NY, is heavily Republican.  The county in CA I live in, Northern San Diego Co., is heavily Republican.   But I bet you are too ignorant to have known that.
Click to expand...


Haha...I call BULLSHIT!
So you spent 20 years in the military and you live among the best in this nation and somehow, someway you're still a twisted and confused total un-American whack-job?
No fucking way!


----------



## P@triot

bodecea said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> More California Envy.
> 
> What is the crime level for other STDs?   Felony or Misdemeanor?
Click to expand...

Does HPV *kill you*, sweetie? Does it? More progressive common sense envy.


----------



## P@triot

bodecea said:


> What is the crime level for other STDs?   Felony or Misdemeanor?


The fact that you would even attempt to defend something this sick, this disturbing, and this outrageous is a testament to your partisan hack mentality. I *guarantee* you if a Republican government had changed spreading AIDS intentionally from a felony to a misdemeanor, you'd be all over this board losing your shit.

That's just sick. And your sick for defending it.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.


"New York" 

Second only to California in being the rectum of America.


----------



## P@triot

bodecea said:


> BTW...the area of NY where I am from, Western NY, is heavily Republican.


Doesn't do much good to have a Republican county if your state government is run by a bonafide lunatic like Cuomo.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
Click to expand...

Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?

Nestlé, Other Businesses Flee California | Competitive Enterprise ...

Two dozen companies commit to leaving California - KCRA.com

Misguided State Policies Lead To More Companies Leaving California

If only progressive found swallowing facts as easy as they find swallowing cocks, this world would be a MUCH better place.


----------



## sartre play

Wonder how many posting negatives about Calif have ever lived there? speak up.  every state has great things & not so great stuff.
 that's why us lucky Americans can move any where in the states we want, no pass port or paper work needed.


----------



## Mr Natural

P@triot said:


> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?



Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.
Click to expand...

LMAO! That’s the response of a second grader. It’s a shit-hole state and _everyone_ knows it. People and businesses are fleeing in record numbers. Your juvenile “losers can’t make it there” excuse is as pitiful as you are.

It’s a state that promotes and supports promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual assault on women and children, drug use, illegal aliens, and communism among other things.


----------



## jasonnfree

P@triot said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO! That’s the response of a second grader. It’s a shit-hole state and _everyone_ knows it. People and businesses are fleeing in record numbers. Your juvenile “losers can’t make it there” excuse is as pitiful as you are.
> 
> It’s a state that promotes and supports promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual assault on women and children, drug use, illegal aliens, and communism among other things.
Click to expand...


So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.


----------



## jasonnfree

BrokeLoser said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but...Silicon Valley, the Pacific Ocean...but, but, but...GDP!
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better? You can't be serious?
> Any state with fewer Mexicans, fewer Blacks and fewer Liberals...coincidence?
> But you probably don't want the whole truth and nothing but the truth do you? This is the kind of truth that causes you to cry RACIST, roll up in the fetal position and need a shower...it scares you.
Click to expand...


So why are you still living here in California if it's as bad as you say it is?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Lol, Califorina is one of the riches and most advance economies on this planet. Do you know what real misery is? Asshole? Mississippi, Alabama and most of the south are truly the poorest, least educated and most backwards shit holes this country has to offer.


----------



## jasonnfree

ScienceRocks said:


> Lol, Califorina is one of the riches and most advance economies on this planet. Do you know what real misery is? Asshole? Mississippi, Alabama and most of the south are truly the poorest, least educated and most backwards shit holes this country has to offer.



I don't call any state a craphole.  They all have their own history, traditions, good people, not so good people  etc.


----------



## P@triot

jasonnfree said:


> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.


I live in a state that *doesn’t* have people and businesses fleeing in record numbers. My state also doesn’t sign laws that lowers knowingly spreading AIDS from a felony to a misdemeanor.

I mean...come on. What kind of a state does that? If you intentionally spread AIDS - that _is_ *attempted* *murder*. And Jerry Brown and the idiot state government there just made it a misdemeanor.


----------



## P@triot

ScienceRocks said:


> Lol, Califorina is one of the *riches* and most *advance* economies on this planet. Do you know what real misery is? Asshole? Mississippi, Alabama and most of the south are truly the poorest, least educated and most backwards shit holes this country has to offer.


Clearly Sucking Cocks was educated in California... 

And if California was truly one of the most (and I quote) “advance” (that would be *advanced*, you uneducated dillhole), then businesses *wouldn’t* be fleeing that shit-hole state in record numbers.

The facts override your idiotic and uneducated _opinion_.


----------



## P@triot

jasonnfree said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, Califorina is one of the riches and most advance economies on this planet. Do you know what real misery is? Asshole? Mississippi, Alabama and most of the south are truly the poorest, least educated and most backwards shit holes this country has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't call any state a craphole.  They all have their own history, traditions, good people, not so good people  etc.
Click to expand...

I don’t deny that California has produced some amazing people. Steve Jobs (although a serious asshole) was pretty remarkable. Jessica Alba is not only beautiful, but bright and classy. Tom Brady is awesome.

But there is no denying the state has become an absolute shit-hole. The list of problems with that state is astounding, and they are all self-inflicted.


----------



## jasonnfree

P@triot said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a state that *doesn’t* have people and businesses fleeing in record numbers. My state also doesn’t sign laws that lowers knowingly spreading AIDS from a felony to a misdemeanor.
> 
> I mean...come on. What kind of a state does that? If you intentionally spread AIDS - that _is_ *attempted* *murder*. And Jerry Brown and the idiot state government there just made it a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...


What state do you live in?   Real Estate is selling like hotcakes here and it's hard to find a small home in just a halfway decent neighborhood for under a half million.  Lots of wealthy foreigners buy real estate here.  Why aren't they picking up low priced real estate in Kansas, Oklahoma,  Alabama?    Things aren't as bad  here as they say it is.  You have to go out of your way to find the slums here. You say people are leaving here in record numbers, but they must be being replaced by record numbers.  If you got on one of our many freeways during work time traffic, you'd know what I mean.


----------



## imawhosure

jasonnfree said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a state that *doesn’t* have people and businesses fleeing in record numbers. My state also doesn’t sign laws that lowers knowingly spreading AIDS from a felony to a misdemeanor.
> 
> I mean...come on. What kind of a state does that? If you intentionally spread AIDS - that _is_ *attempted* *murder*. And Jerry Brown and the idiot state government there just made it a misdemeanor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state do you live in?   Real Estate is selling like hotcakes here and it's hard to find a small home in just a halfway decent neighborhood for under a half million.  Lots of wealthy foreigners buy real estate here.  Why aren't they picking up low priced real estate in Kansas, Oklahoma,  Alabama?    Things aren't as bad  here as they say it is.  You have to go out of your way to find the slums here. You say people are leaving here in record numbers, but they must be being replaced by record numbers.  If you got on one of our many freeways during work time traffic, you'd know what I mean.
Click to expand...



You had better do some research before you blow your horn.  California is on the verge of collapse!  People are fleeing like crazy, and being replaced by illegal aliens.

Why are homes so high?  Because of YOUR GOVERNMENT in the state!  That is like asking why rents for some people are so cheap in New York, (rent control) while others pay through the nose.

In closing, let me say that YOU are actually doing the rest of us a favor, while you THINK you are doing yourself a favor!  You see,  we can go spend 5,000 dollars a day if we want, until we run out of money too.  It would look like you do, living high, everyone thinks it is great unless they look at the balance sheet, and claim it is the American dream, lol.

And then, and then, you RUN OUT OF MONEY, and can't borrow anymore.  OR, you screw the states retirees, and have you told them that is what you are going to do yet, and that would only save you for awhile!  In truth, Illinois is 1st, but you are NOT far behind-)


----------



## AntonToo

miketx said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
Click to expand...



 Why not throw in Alaska real estate?


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating deb



Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating deb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.
Click to expand...

Another progressive who denies reality. 

Nitwit...if “everyone” wants to be there, people and businesses wouldn’t be fleeing that shit-hole state in record numbers. Stop making up your own version of reality.


----------



## P@triot

jasonnfree said:


> If you got on one of our many freeways during work time traffic, you'd know what I mean.


More proof of what a shit-hold state California is. A well run state addresses traffic properly.


----------



## Seawytch

Mr Clean said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
Click to expand...


We'll have to agree to disagree.  I've lived in both NY and CA and CA wins hands down. Where else can you snow ski and surf in the same day? 

And come on...


----------



## Seawytch

jasonnfree said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO! That’s the response of a second grader. It’s a shit-hole state and _everyone_ knows it. People and businesses are fleeing in record numbers. Your juvenile “losers can’t make it there” excuse is as pitiful as you are.
> 
> It’s a state that promotes and supports promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual assault on women and children, drug use, illegal aliens, and communism among other things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.
Click to expand...


It's own country that ranks 6th, economically, in the *world*.


----------



## P@triot

Let’s take an _objective_ look at California:

Problems (mostly) of their control:

Earthquakes
Wild Fires
Problems within their control which they *fail* to properly manage:

Traffic
Riots (Watts, Rodney King, etc.)
Problems which they literally created:

Gangs (Bloods, Crips, Mongols, Hells Angels, Mexican Mafia, etc.)
Ungodly real estate prices for pathetic homes and properties
$80 billion in debt
Illegal aliens encouraged and supported
Serial Killers (Charles Manson, the Zodiac, Night Stalker, Golden State Killer)
Mass power outages
Substance abuse
Sexual abuse
Wow...what a “wonderful” place to live. Gangs, serial killers, and rapists are running around rampant while you have no power, $80 billion in debt, queers spreading STD’s, people are rioting and wild fires are burning down whatever the earthquakes didn’t already collapse.

Gee..why oh why haven’t I moved there already?


----------



## sartre play

California the golden state, lots of good lots of bad & every thing in the middle PS best weather in the who USA when its not on fire. PS love your pictures of the redwoods, use to live down the street from old mill park. the start of the redwoods in Marin county. Am Midwest now, every place has its own beauty.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> It's own country that ranks 6th, economically, in the *world*.


That’s because it’s _massive_ and filled with advantageous natural resources (agricultural, oil, beach front property, etc.). If it wasn’t a shit-hole state run into the ground by progressives, it would be the #2 economy in the world and people and businesses wouldn’t be fleeing it.


----------



## P@triot

sartre play said:


> PS best weather in the who USA *when its not on fire*.


Hands down my favorite post of the week on USMB...


----------



## Seawytch

Top 10 U.S. destinations...weird so many are in CA

*10. Orlando, Fla.*

*9. Washington, D.C.*

*8. Seattle, Wash.*

*7. San Diego, Calif.*

*6. Los Angeles, Calif.*

*5. New Orleans, La.*

*4. Las Vegas, Nev.*

*3. San Francisco, Calif.*

*2. Chicago, Ill.*

*1. New York City, N.Y.*


----------



## Shrimpbox

While there are plenty of places I don't want to be in California, sea witch is right, the redwoods are a religious experience and a national treasure. I have heard from some in my family that San Diego is very nice too. Basically for me there is an inverse relationship. The bigger the population the less I want to live there. Since Mathew doesn't want them I'll take Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and the mountains of western North Carolina thank you


----------



## sartre play

if your willing to share, will take New Orleans, & half of north Carolina.  there are some pretty parts there but let you keep Alabama,& Florida


----------



## SYTFE

miketx said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
Click to expand...


That's because everyone wants to live in California, and no one wants to live in the redneck hell called Texas.  Prices reflect supply and demand, moron.


----------



## BrokeLoser

SYTFE said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because everyone wants to live in California, and no one wants to live in the redneck hell called Texas.  Prices reflect supply and demand, moron.
Click to expand...


NEGATIVE
haha...nobody stand-up "wants" to live in Mexifornia. I live in a very nice, very exclusive "pocket" of Southern Mexifornia and I can't wait to get out...most legit people are trapped here by jobs, businesses, real estate, kids in college...etc..but trust me we all have escape plans.
However, this armpit has become an amazing shithole for wetbacks, illegitimate classless filth, Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, men in dresses, carpet munchers and pole puffers.


----------



## easyt65

California wants to be independent...

Earthquakes, mud slides, forest fires, huge debt, sexual criminal deviants, Hollywood pushing violent / sexual deviant culture...

Perhaps Trump's wall should wall off California  from the rest of the US.


----------



## Seawytch

easyt65 said:


> California wants to be independent...
> 
> Earthquakes, mud slides, forest fires, huge debt, sexual criminal deviants, Hollywood pushing violent / sexual deviant culture...
> 
> Perhaps Trump's wall should wall off California  from the rest of the US.



CA would do fine...y'all might not like the price you'd end up paying for produce though...


----------



## easyt65

Seawytch said:


> CA would do fine...y'all might not like the price you'd end up paying for produce though...


HOW would Ca 'do fine'? Without Uncle Sam bsiling them out constantly they are screwed. Ca is burning right now, the governor has his hand out, and libs are threatening to leave the union ... while filing a law suit demanding the US govt continues to give them / their insurers in Ca illegal subsidies.

Ca would do as well as a no-legged man in a lumberjack log-rolling contest...and would last about as long.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Texas emerges as top destination for Californians fleeing state


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

ScienceRocks said:


> Lol, Califorina is one of the riches and most advance economies on this planet. Do you know what real misery is? Asshole? Mississippi, Alabama and most of the south are truly the poorest, least educated and most backwards shit holes this country has to offer.



Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate

California's school system ranked 9th worst in the nation


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating deb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.
Click to expand...


Middle Class Fleeing CA at Record Rates - California Political Review


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> The state sure loves their sexual assaults and sexual offenders...
> 
> Another Groping Allegation Against 'Buttman' Affleck. Does This Spell Doom For 'Justice League'?


Funny Affleck is an amateur next to the orange serial sex offender.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

SYTFE said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because everyone wants to live in California, and no one wants to live in the redneck hell called Texas.  Prices reflect supply and demand, moron.
Click to expand...


Middle Class Fleeing CA at Record Rates - California Political Review



SYTFE said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because everyone wants to live in California, and no one wants to live in the redneck hell called Texas.  Prices reflect supply and demand, moron.
Click to expand...


Californians moving to Texas in record numbers


----------



## Gracie

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


Anyone using the nic PATRIOT that disses a state within the USA is no patriot. 

Just sayin'.

Plus I am getting tired of the Cali dissin's.


----------



## P@triot

Gracie said:


> Anyone using the nic PATRIOT that disses a state within the USA is no patriot.


Vintage left-wing fascism there. Sorry, but true patriots criticize leaders, states, legislation, and more.


----------



## Gracie

P@triot said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone using the nic PATRIOT that disses a state within the USA is no patriot.
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage left-wing fascism there. Sorry, but true patriots criticize leaders, states, legislation, and more.
Click to expand...

lol. Shows how much you know thinking I am a lefty.


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating deb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another progressive who denies reality.
> 
> Nitwit...if “everyone” wants to be there, people and businesses wouldn’t be fleeing that shit-hole state in record numbers. Stop making up your own version of reality.
Click to expand...


Again mr.Reality, have you ever even been there?


----------



## AntonToo

BrokeLoser said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because everyone wants to live in California, and no one wants to live in the redneck hell called Texas.  Prices reflect supply and demand, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEGATIVE
> haha...nobody stand-up "wants" to live in Mexifornia. I live in a very nice, very exclusive "pocket" of Southern Mexifornia and I can't wait to get out...most legit people are trapped here by jobs, businesses, real estate, kids in college...etc..but trust me we all have escape plans.
> However, this armpit has become an amazing shithole for wetbacks, illegitimate classless filth, Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, men in dresses, carpet munchers and pole puffers.
Click to expand...


Of course you do, for retirement, because it's cheaper to live in west bumble fuck once you dont need a job and can sell your prime real estate.


----------



## AntonToo

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating deb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Middle Class Fleeing CA at Record Rates - California Political Review
Click to expand...


POPULATION never decreased in California and it has by far the largest population of any state, the rest is bullshit.


----------



## Norman

The taxes are so high.

In California, you get raped every day. If not by guys like Weinstein or Weiner, then by the state.


----------



## AntonToo

Norman said:


> The taxes are so high.
> 
> In California, you get raped every day. If not by guys like Weinstein or Weiner, then by the state.



So are salaries, is that like getting a blow job everyday?


----------



## sartre play

Sigh, lets talk about Alabama ........SMILE


----------



## miketx

sartre play said:


> Sigh, lets talk about Alabama ........SMILE


Sigh, foofie....um...no. We are talking about the worst state in the union, California.


----------



## P@triot

Gracie said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone using the nic PATRIOT that disses a state within the USA is no patriot.
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage left-wing fascism there. Sorry, but true patriots criticize leaders, states, legislation, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. Shows how much you know thinking I am a lefty.
Click to expand...

Where did I say _you_ were a lefty? 

(Psst..._stupid_...one can have a single left-wing thought or view without being left-wing)


----------



## P@triot

sartre play said:


> Sigh, lets talk about Alabama ........SMILE


Sure! For starters, they’ve had the most dominant college football team in the nation for over a decade now. Also, _nobody_ is fleeing Alabama to escape ignorant government.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> Again mr.Reality, have you ever even been there?


I don’t need to go there to watch the news, chief. I had a front-row seat for the Rodney King riots from my house. I’ve read the IRS reports about the _billions_ in tax revenue fleeing California. I’ve seen the news stories about the gang violence, the drugs, promiscuity, and sexual assaults of Hollywood, and their inability to even keep the power on (which is freaking fall-down hilarious...California is like a third world nation thanks to progressivism).


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again mr.Reality, have you ever even been there?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t need to go there to watch the news, chief.
Click to expand...


Then STFU, you got no clue what you are talking about. 

California is blessed in many non-politico ways.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Middle Class Fleeing CA at Record Rates - California Political Review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> POPULATION never decreased in California and it has by far the largest population of any state, *the rest is bullshit*.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder how long the left can deny reality because it conflicts with their fucked up idoelogy? The reports are real, you dimwit. IRS data _proves_ it. I posted articles about businesses fleeing that shit-hole state (they don’t want to provide free healthcare, free housing, free food, and free education to illegal aliens at the risk to their business).


----------



## jon_berzerk

socialism =making everyone equal 

equally miserable that is


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again mr.Reality, have you ever even been there?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t need to go there to watch the news, chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then STFU, you got no clue what you are talking about. California is blessed in many non-politico ways.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to Iraq? Then why have you opened your large and very ignorant mouth about it thousands of times?

Game. Set. Match, _bitch_.


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again mr.Reality, have you ever even been there?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t need to go there to watch the news, chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then STFU, you got no clue what you are talking about. California is blessed in many non-politico ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been to Iraq? Then why have you opened your large and very ignorant mouth about it thousands of times?
> 
> Game. Set. Match, _bitch_.
Click to expand...


LOL wtf? Where do I compare life in Iraq?

Here's my advice to you - stop all the ridiculous politicking based on your TV adventures and go take a vacation. 

Pack some basic shit and head down to California, rent a convertible and drive down (or up) the coast - I promise you a trip you'll remember for the rest of your life.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

antontoo said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating deb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Middle Class Fleeing CA at Record Rates - California Political Review
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POPULATION never decreased in California and it has by far the largest population of any state, the rest is bullshit.
Click to expand...


California is going third world on a rocket sled


----------



## AntonToo

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating deb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Middle Class Fleeing CA at Record Rates - California Political Review
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POPULATION never decreased in California and it has by far the largest population of any state, the rest is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California is going third world on a rocket sled
Click to expand...


Ever been to that "third world"?


----------



## Dschrute3

All Democrat-controlled areas are miserable Third World messes. California is on track to becoming Venezuela. That's only a matter of time. It'll go down as another once great American location decimated by the Democrats. It's very sad.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

jasonnfree said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO! That’s the response of a second grader. It’s a shit-hole state and _everyone_ knows it. People and businesses are fleeing in record numbers. Your juvenile “losers can’t make it there” excuse is as pitiful as you are.
> 
> It’s a state that promotes and supports promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual assault on women and children, drug use, illegal aliens, and communism among other things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.
Click to expand...


  I wish it was....


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> LOL wtf? Where do I compare life in Iraq?


Who said anything about "comparing life"? You've commented thousands of times about what we've done over in Iraq. Since you've never been there to see it, you should keep your mouth shut.

What a pitiful way to attempt to get out of your previous idiotic comment. One does not have to physically step somewhere to be informed about it. Especially in this day of technology.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> Here's my advice to you - stop all the ridiculous politicking based on your TV adventures and go take a vacation.
> 
> Pack some basic shit and head down to California, rent a convertible and drive down (or up) the coast - I promise you a trip you'll remember for the rest of your life.


I can't tell if you're a genius for making that comment or an idiot. Nobody denies that California has some beautiful land (it was made by God - of course it's beautiful - just like EVERY state in America has some beautiful land). But that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing how progressives have turned it into a shit-hole were a pitiful 900 sq ft home costs $450,000, where gangs and illegal aliens run rampant, where Hollywood stars and execs sexually assault any female they come into contact with, and where they over spend their budget by $80 billion but still can't figure out how to keep the power on.

I can't tell if this was a technique by you to change the conversation because you can't dispute the facts (genius) or if you're just too dumb to follow along (idiot).


----------



## Theowl32

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


Governments have been trying to eliminate undesirables, for a long time. Perhaps we have not noticed, but it certainly seems that there is some kind of cure....for a nominal fee. 

Wasnt Magic diagnosed with HIV in.....1991? 

The media...if you notice, has certainly stopped hyping it. No more massive fundraisers. Nothing from hollywood anymore about it. Have you noticed that? South Park pretty much did a great episode about it. 


BTW, look at the fake DDT scare in Africa as an example. There was a fake report about the "destruction" that DDT causes. That was being used to stop the spread of malaria. As a result of the fake report that DDT did damage to the environment (all not true) they stopped spraying. All of a sudden over 10 million Africans died of malaria over the next decade. 

Yeah, I am sure there is nothing to it. Yeah.


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my advice to you - stop all the ridiculous politicking based on your TV adventures and go take a vacation.
> 
> Pack some basic shit and head down to California, rent a convertible and drive down (or up) the coast - I promise you a trip you'll remember for the rest of your life.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell if you're a genius for making that comment or an idiot. Nobody denies that California has some beautiful land (it was made by God - of course it's beautiful - just like EVERY state in America has some beautiful land). But that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing how progressives have turned it into a shit-hole were a pitiful 900 sq ft home costs $450,000, where gangs and illegal aliens run rampant, where Hollywood stars and execs sexually assault any female they come into contact with, and where they over spend their budget by $80 billion but still can't figure out how to keep the power on.
> 
> I can't tell if this was a technique by you to change the conversation because you can't dispute the facts (genius) or if you're just too dumb to follow along (idiot).
Click to expand...


900sq foot homes DO NOT COST $450,000 IN SHITHOLES dummy, they cost $450,000 in areas of HIGH DEMAND like California.


----------



## Synthaholic

miketx said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas and Texas.
Click to expand...


----------



## SYTFE

Synthaholic said:


>



GREAT avatar, lol


----------



## miketx

Synthaholic said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas and Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Using a left wing fag movie to prove something, is pretty stupid. But, consider the source.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> 900sq foot homes DO NOT COST $450,000 IN SHITHOLES dummy, they cost $450,000 in areas of HIGH DEMAND like California.


There is no "high demand" there, snowflake. It's a combination of a lack of options, high state and local taxes driving up costs, and desperation. Hence, the reason businesses and people are fleeing that shit-hole state.


----------



## Synthaholic

Norman said:


> The taxes are so high.
> 
> In California, you get raped every day. If not by guys like Weinstein or Weiner, then by the state.


If you can't afford to live there then you shouldn't live there.  Pretty fucking simple.  Plenty of people can, and do.

I swear, you're all a bunch of whiny little bitches, complaining about a state you don't even live in.


----------



## Synthaholic

SYTFE said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GREAT avatar, lol
Click to expand...

The Republican standard of beauty.  The face of this administration.


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 900sq foot homes DO NOT COST $450,000 IN SHITHOLES dummy, they cost $450,000 in areas of HIGH DEMAND like California.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "high demand" there, snowflake. It's a combination of a lack of options, high state and local taxes driving up costs, and desperation. Hence, the reason businesses and people are fleeing that shit-hole state.
Click to expand...


You are clearly an idiot - prices are REDUCED by by high taxes, since they DEPRESS demand.

Real estate prices are are only as high as people are WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.


----------



## Synthaholic

miketx said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas and Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using a left wing fag movie to prove something, is pretty stupid. But, consider the source.
Click to expand...

Full Metal Jacket is a fag movie?


----------



## miketx

Synthaholic said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes are so high.
> 
> In California, you get raped every day. If not by guys like Weinstein or Weiner, then by the state.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't afford to live there then you shouldn't live there.  Pretty fucking simple.  Plenty of people can, and do.
> 
> I swear, you're all a bunch of whiny little bitches, complaining about a state you don't even live in.
Click to expand...

Oh you, it's a matter on time before California implodes. I'll feel bad for the people who couldn't get out, but the rest of them, they deserve it. The state with the highest deficit, the most illegals, the least freedom, I say good riddance!


----------



## Synthaholic

miketx said:


> Using a left wing fag movie to prove something, is pretty stupid. But, consider the source.


Did you use your Texas Gaydar?


----------



## miketx

Synthaholic said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas and Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using a left wing fag movie to prove something, is pretty stupid. But, consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full Metal Jacket is a fag movie?
Click to expand...

Sure is.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> You are clearly an idiot - prices are REDUCED by by high taxes, since they DEPRESS demand.


Property taxes cause the cost of owning a properly to _increase_, you nitwit.


----------



## miketx

Synthaholic said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using a left wing fag movie to prove something, is pretty stupid. But, consider the source.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use your Texas Gaydar?
Click to expand...

No I just remember the part where they are cleaning the John and one agrees to let the other screw him the ass. I'm sure that's normal for regressives, but to me it screams FAG!


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly an idiot - prices are REDUCED by by high taxes, since they DEPRESS demand.
> 
> 
> 
> Property taxes cause the cost of owning a properly to _increase_, you nitwit.
Click to expand...


YES, AND THEREFORE DEPRESSES BUYING DEMAND.

High cost of ownership = less attractive buy.

This is not rocket science.


----------



## miketx

FMJ fag scene


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> YES, AND THEREFORE DEPRESSES BUYING DEMAND.


Wait...what? According to all of you progressives - taxes do *not* negatively impact sales. Oops.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> This is not rocket science.


You’re right - it’s not. You should just believe the accurate reports that businesses and people are fleeing the great (shit-hole) state of California. Trust me, life is so much easier when you merely accept reality (even if it’s uncomfortable for you and your ideology).


----------



## Mr Natural

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re right - it’s not. You should just believe the accurate reports that businesses and people are fleeing the great (shit-hole) state of California. Trust me, life is so much easier when you merely accept reality (even if it’s uncomfortable for you and your ideology).
Click to expand...


Let’s see some of these reports


----------



## Wyatt earp

Timmy said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand .  People want to live in California .  Jobs pay more in cali . That's why housing prices are high.
Click to expand...



Prove jobs pay more in California with the same field and not just with averages?

Because I could go on and on in manufacturing  they don't, by using the job boards.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re right - it’s not. You should just believe the accurate reports that businesses and people are fleeing the great (shit-hole) state of California. Trust me, life is so much easier when you merely accept reality (even if it’s uncomfortable for you and your ideology).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s see some of these reports
Click to expand...

They've been posted about a dozen times in this thread by myself and others. Don't be afraid to click on them and read them. They won't physically hurt you - I promise.


----------



## tycho1572

I don’t think California would be a democrat state if there wasn’t voter fraud.
Here’s one of a few vids that exposes what democrats have been doing....


----------



## tycho1572

That vid shows why democrats are vehemently against voter ID.


----------



## miketx

As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.

http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html


----------



## Mr Natural

P@triot said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re right - it’s not. You should just believe the accurate reports that businesses and people are fleeing the great (shit-hole) state of California. Trust me, life is so much easier when you merely accept reality (even if it’s uncomfortable for you and your ideology).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s see some of these reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They've been posted about a dozen times in this thread by myself and others. Don't be afraid to click on them and read them. They won't physically hurt you - I promise.
Click to expand...


In other words, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about as usual.

Just blowing right wing crap out your enormous ass.

Enjoy your minimal life in Gooberville, loser.
.


----------



## tycho1572

I guess I should have included a special trigger warning for deanrd. He once went ballistic after I asked why he changed his name from rderp. lol


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re right - it’s not. You should just believe the accurate reports that businesses and people are fleeing the great (shit-hole) state of California. Trust me, life is so much easier when you merely accept reality (even if it’s uncomfortable for you and your ideology).
Click to expand...


Here is AGAIN California's population graph. Where are the "fleeing people" and how long have they been fleeing for?







Sure SOME PEOPLE are going to spill over into less populous states with cheaper real estate, but California is only getting more populous overall.


----------



## AntonToo

miketx said:


> As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.
> 
> http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html



...let me show you how this is done:

List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia

California median income: $64,500 (#9)
Texas median income: $55,653 (#22)


----------



## Mr Natural

antontoo said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.
> 
> http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...let me show you how this is done:
> 
> List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia
> 
> California median income: $64,500 (#9)
> Texas median income: $55,653 (#22)
Click to expand...


Only in Conservatopia is making less better than making more.

“Prosperity Through Lower Wages!”


----------



## AntonToo

tycho1572 said:


> I don’t think California would be a democrat state if there wasn’t voter fraud.



Typical loser Republican fantasies.


----------



## miketx

antontoo said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.
> 
> http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...let me show you how this is done:
> 
> List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia
> 
> California median income: $64,500 (#9)
> Texas median income: $55,653 (#22)
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what I posted. I posted a SPECIFIC job. you post, supposedly, a statement of average. Fail again. Besides a family making 65k cannot afford that 500,000 cottage I posted.


----------



## AntonToo

Mr Clean said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.
> 
> http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...let me show you how this is done:
> 
> List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia
> 
> California median income: $64,500 (#9)
> Texas median income: $55,653 (#22)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in Conservatopia is making less better than making more.
> 
> “Prosperity Through Lower Wages!”
Click to expand...


Well to be fair 56k salary in Texas will still probably have higher purchasing power than 65k in Cali...but salary differences do offset a lot of the tax and real estate price differences. And the climate in Cali is much nicer.


----------



## tycho1572

antontoo said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think California would be a democrat state if there wasn’t voter fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical loser Republican fantasies.
Click to expand...

Typical democrat defending voter fraud.


----------



## AntonToo

miketx said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.
> 
> http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...let me show you how this is done:
> 
> List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia
> 
> California median income: $64,500 (#9)
> Texas median income: $55,653 (#22)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with what I posted. I posted a SPECIFIC job. you post, supposedly, a statement of average. Fail again.
Click to expand...


Yea, you posted SPECIFIC job I posted GENERAL, all encompassing, difference that is of much more interest to the discussion.

Generally speaking, jobs pay more in Cali.


----------



## miketx

antontoo said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.
> 
> http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...let me show you how this is done:
> 
> List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia
> 
> California median income: $64,500 (#9)
> Texas median income: $55,653 (#22)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with what I posted. I posted a SPECIFIC job. you post, supposedly, a statement of average. Fail again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, you posted SPECIFIC job I posted GENERAL, all encompassing, difference that is of much more interest to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Yes and in doing so, you promote a false ability, that being of being able to afford a house.


----------



## AntonToo

miketx said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as jobs paying more, according to this link automotive tech jobs pay less than they do here.
> 
> http://www1.salary.com/CA/Automotive-Mechanic-I-salary.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...let me show you how this is done:
> 
> List of U.S. states by income - Wikipedia
> 
> California median income: $64,500 (#9)
> Texas median income: $55,653 (#22)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with what I posted. I posted a SPECIFIC job. you post, supposedly, a statement of average. Fail again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, you posted SPECIFIC job I posted GENERAL, all encompassing, difference that is of much more interest to the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and in doing so, you promote a false ability, that being of being able to afford a house.
Click to expand...


Is this English?

Jobs generally pay more in Cali, which offsets, real estate and taxation differences.


----------



## tycho1572

antontoo said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think California would be a democrat state if there wasn’t voter fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical loser Republican fantasies.
Click to expand...

Here’s another vid I think you could learn from.......


----------



## sartre play

Why are you bashing California, if you don't want to live there don't. that's what is great about America, no guard posts, free to roam with out passport or papers any where you want in our USA.


----------



## tycho1572

Are you honestly ok with anyone doing that, antontoo?


----------



## Mr Natural

sartre play said:


> Why are you bashing California, if you don't want to live there don't. that's what is great about America, no guard posts, free to roam with out passport or papers any where you want in our USA.




Call it Class Envy for lack of a better term


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re right - it’s not. You should just believe the accurate reports that businesses and people are fleeing the great (shit-hole) state of California. Trust me, life is so much easier when you merely accept reality (even if it’s uncomfortable for you and your ideology).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s see some of these reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They've been posted about a dozen times in this thread by myself and others. Don't be afraid to click on them and read them. They won't physically hurt you - I promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about as usual.
> 
> Just blowing right wing crap out your enormous ass.
> 
> Enjoy your minimal life in Gooberville, loser.
> .
Click to expand...

Uh...what? 

You missed the links because you’re ignorant and/or lazy. I tell you where they are and rather than read them...you have a meltdown like a snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

sartre play said:


> Why are you bashing California, if you don't want to live there don't. that's what is great about America, no guard posts, free to roam with out passport or papers any where you want in our USA.


And I don’t live there. But what is also great about the U.S. is freedom of speech. Including the freedom to point out the catastrophic failure of left-wing policy in California.


----------



## P@triot

tycho1572 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think California would be a democrat state if there wasn’t voter fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical loser Republican fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here’s another vid I think you could learn from.......
Click to expand...

Wait...you think Antontoo is capable of learning? If he was, he wouldn’t be a progressive.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> Call it Class Envy for lack of a better term


Call it “learning from *failed* policy” for anyone who can actually accept reality (that immediately eliminates Mr. Queen here).


----------



## tycho1572

P@triot said:


> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think California would be a democrat state if there wasn’t voter fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical loser Republican fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here’s another vid I think you could learn from.......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...you think Antontoo is capable of learning? If he was, he wouldn’t be a progressive.
Click to expand...

I’ve worked with enough psych patients to know I can’t talk sense into all of them. 

That said; I’ve had psych patients thank me for helping them with something I said. 
It’s always a crap shoot with libs.


----------



## Synthaholic

miketx said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using a left wing fag movie to prove something, is pretty stupid. But, consider the source.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use your Texas Gaydar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I just remember the part where they are cleaning the John and one agrees to let the other screw him the ass. I'm sure that's normal for regressives, but to me it screams FAG!
Click to expand...

I don't remember that scene.  Maybe you were fooled by a porn parody?  You're already fooled by Right-Wing media . . .


----------



## Synthaholic

miketx said:


> FMJ fag scene


"I WANT TO SLIP MY TUBESTEAK INTO YOUR SISTER"

What's gay about that?


----------



## miketx

Synthaholic said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> FMJ fag scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I WANT TO SLIP MY TUBESTEAK INTO YOUR SISTER"
> 
> What's gay about that?
Click to expand...

So you think the guy has his sister in the barracks in Marine Corp basic training? His "sister" is fag talk for his ass.


----------



## miketx

Synthaholic said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using a left wing fag movie to prove something, is pretty stupid. But, consider the source.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use your Texas Gaydar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I just remember the part where they are cleaning the John and one agrees to let the other screw him the ass. I'm sure that's normal for regressives, but to me it screams FAG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't remember that scene.  Maybe you were fooled by a porn parody?  You're already fooled by Right-Wing media . . .
Click to expand...

I don't watch much of any media, liar.


----------



## Synthaholic

miketx said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> FMJ fag scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I WANT TO SLIP MY TUBESTEAK INTO YOUR SISTER"
> 
> What's gay about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the guy has his sister in the barracks in Marine Corp basic training? His "sister" is fag talk for his ass.
Click to expand...













You're clearly a latent homo.


----------



## miketx

Synthaholic said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> FMJ fag scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I WANT TO SLIP MY TUBESTEAK INTO YOUR SISTER"
> 
> What's gay about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the guy has his sister in the barracks in Marine Corp basic training? His "sister" is fag talk for his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're clearly a latent homo.
Click to expand...

That's a word libstains like to use a lot, clearly.


----------



## AntonToo

tycho1572 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tycho1572 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t think California would be a democrat state if there wasn’t voter fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical loser Republican fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here’s another vid I think you could learn from.......
Click to expand...


Not interested in your pathetic DEY STOLE ELECTION! bullshit.

California's metro areas are very liberal that's why they vote for Democrats *DUH!*


----------



## Shrimpbox

sartre play said:


> if your willing to share, will take New Orleans, & half of north Carolina.  there are some pretty parts there but let you keep Alabama,& Florida


We gonna have to fight over New Orleans. My favorite American city by far.


----------



## Synthaholic

miketx said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> FMJ fag scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I WANT TO SLIP MY TUBESTEAK INTO YOUR SISTER"
> 
> What's gay about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the guy has his sister in the barracks in Marine Corp basic training? His "sister" is fag talk for his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're clearly a latent homo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a word libstains like to use a lot, clearly.
Click to expand...

Latent?  Yeah - you're a latent asshole, too.


----------



## Synthaholic

Jerry Brown is prolly running for Prez.


----------



## WheelieAddict

California is awesome. Misery is more like Kansas or Oklahoma, heavily conservative with religious judging and meth addiction.


----------



## BrokeLoser

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again mr.Reality, have you ever even been there?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t need to go there to watch the news, chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then STFU, you got no clue what you are talking about. California is blessed in many non-politico ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been to Iraq? Then why have you opened your large and very ignorant mouth about it thousands of times?
> 
> Game. Set. Match, _bitch_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL wtf? Where do I compare life in Iraq?
> 
> Here's my advice to you - stop all the ridiculous politicking based on your TV adventures and go take a vacation.
> 
> Pack some basic shit and head down to California, rent a convertible and drive down (or up) the coast - I promise you a trip you'll remember for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...




P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my advice to you - stop all the ridiculous politicking based on your TV adventures and go take a vacation.
> 
> Pack some basic shit and head down to California, rent a convertible and drive down (or up) the coast - I promise you a trip you'll remember for the rest of your life.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell if you're a genius for making that comment or an idiot. Nobody denies that California has some beautiful land (it was made by God - of course it's beautiful - just like EVERY state in America has some beautiful land). But that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing how progressives have turned it into a shit-hole were a pitiful 900 sq ft home costs $450,000, where gangs and illegal aliens run rampant, where Hollywood stars and execs sexually assault any female they come into contact with, and where they over spend their budget by $80 billion but still can't figure out how to keep the power on.
> 
> I can't tell if this was a technique by you to change the conversation because you can't dispute the facts (genius) or if you're just too dumb to follow along (idiot).
Click to expand...


I've said it and said it again...If you're a filthy lowlife you'd love Mexifornia...there's an anything goes free for all sort of vibe here that bottom feeders really love. Sure Hwy 1 and the immediate coastal areas are beautiful, where I live is beautiful, norther Cali is still beautiful....anywhere that wetbacks can't afford to be is still beautiful. Anywhere they can afford to be (packing three families to a three bedroom) has been completely beanerized and is a disgusting shithole....PERIOD! I live here, I own real estate here...I KNOW. Watching our local news here tells the tale...very few people interviewed can even speak basic English....we refer to our local news as Wetbacks Gone Wild...no bullshit. Good people can't send their kids to public schools as they're completely overwhelmed with silver tooth anchor babies. Little academics are taught as these kids get their parenting from teachers and the school...the curriculum is more about teaching kids English because they aren't taught it in their homes. 
I live on the beach in south Orange County...thank God beaners can't even afford the gas in my area...I have friends that live on north Orange County beaches, Huntington and Newport where all the beaners go on weekends...the locals there walk the beach after the weekend picking up dirty diapers, Bud Light cans and the like left by wetbacks...nobody else does that shit.
Bottom line...if you're a filthy bottom feeding wetback, a drug addict, a general lowlife, a faggot, a man in a dress...etc you will probably fall in love with Southern Mexifornia.


----------



## BrokeLoser

WheelieAddict said:


> California is awesome. Misery is more like Kansas or Oklahoma, heavily conservative with religious judging and meth addiction.



This "religious judging" you speak of...Decent, moral, responsible folks tend to expect more from fellow humans...whereas the filthy lowlife scum you love so much in Mexifornia aren't really afforded the luxury of having an expectation for obvious reasons....a lowlife piece of shit illegal wetback on the taxpayer tit can't exactly say; "Man that guy really needs to get his shit together."
See how this all works?


----------



## P@triot

What a shithole. If it doesn’t rain, the entire damn state catches on fire. Everything burns to the ground and many people die. If it does rain, the entire damn state falls into a sinkhole and many people die.

Death toll rises to 17 in Montecito; 100 homes destroyed by mudslides


----------



## P@triot

This what failed left-wing policy results in - anchor babies.


> Federal agents raided twenty "birth hotels" on Tuesday night in the Los Angeles area. The plush complexes double as "maternity hotels" for pregnant Chinese women who come to the US to give birth to their anchor babies.
> 
> Chinese women pay from $40,000 to $80,000 to come to the US to deliver their anchor babies. It's an industry. Chinese listing sites show several hundred maternity hotels in Southern California. It's not clear how many of the listings are active.


But...in all fairness...the left realizes they can’t win elections without the votes purchased from foreigners - so what else are they supposed to do?

Enough! Feds Raid 20 Chinese Immigrant 'Birth Hotels' in Los Angeles


----------



## P@triot

California is such a miserable shithole. What an embarrassment to the U.S. It’s the only state that wants to break off from _itself_. 

New California declares 'independence' from California in bid to become 51st state


----------



## The Original Tree

California wants to secede from California and form New California and leave Nazi Pelosi and Maxipad Waters in charge of Old California which is the country’s leader in poverty. 

Literally California is covered in shit from Illegals and I applaud New California from wanting out of that Liberal Shit Hole!


----------



## Kondor3

If the missiles ever fly across the Pacific from adversaries on the other side, chances are they'll overfly the West Coast.

After all, annexing and assimilating the *Democratic People's Socialist Republik of Kalipornia* would be an easy task, given their kindred-spirit status.


----------



## Kondor3

P@triot said:


> California is such a miserable shithole. What an embarrassment to the U.S. It’s the only state that wants to break off from _itself_.
> 
> New California declares 'independence' from California in bid to become 51st state


Nahhhhh... there's been a movement outside the environs of Chicago to detach the rest of Illinois from that inner-city $hithole and its 87-year Dem-Machine tyranny.

But one can sympathize... who-the-hell wants to be attached-at-the-hip to a Coastal Gaggle of Beaners and LibTards... given how they suck the life out of their taxpayers.


----------



## Eaglewings

BrokeLoser said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a New Yorker, I have to say New York but California is a close second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most LefTards would say:
> "Any state where stuffing my penis in a mans ass could be considered cool, any state where a deranged man in a dress can shit next to teenage girls, the state that rains down the most free shit to its bottom feeders, any state that steals from good quality, hard working Americans to fund as many illegal Wetbacks as possible.
Click to expand...

Gosh you can not be for real..what a hateful idiot.
California High Tech is the new gold Rush of our time.
The homes are expensive because of China buying and over paying , jacking the prices up and then leave them as ghost houses.

Why don't you all educate yourselfs before spewing 6 pages of Parrot Koolaide spoonfed into your stupid minds.

San Francisco gave the hi techs a tax break to set up shop..yeah right the trickle down bullshit..

Middle class homes where sold tore down and mega hi rise 3 million dollar apartments sold to the mega rich.

It is your trickle down bullshit that started the hi rent's..

.

Sent from my XT1575 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## P@triot

Eaglewings said:


> San Francisco gave the hi techs a tax break to set up shop..yeah right the trickle down bullshit...


It’s such “bullshit” that it worked flawlessly. Twitter moved their HQ to San Francisco.


----------



## P@triot

Eaglewings said:


> Middle class homes where sold tore down and mega hi rise 3 million dollar apartments sold to the mega rich.


Only the flood up poverty mindset of the left could actually complain that policy was so successful, it replaced the middle class with the “mega rich”.

Yeah...who would want to move up when one can follow failed left-wing policy and move down until everyone is “equal” in poverty?


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in catastrophic failure like left-wing policy...


> More than half a million Californians have moved to other states since 2010. Every day since then, an average of 386 people moved from New York to other states.
> 
> And Illinois lost so many people in 2016 that it actually fell one spot in the population rankings, losing its place to Pennsylvania — which itself has watched more people leave than come.


This is what *failed* left-wing policy does. It ends in poverty and misery for everyone.

People Are Fleeing Blue Strongholds That Cost Too Much


----------



## P@triot

So the most progressive state - with the most government control and interference - is dead last in “quality of life”. Shocking.

California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study


----------



## WheelieAddict

P@triot said:


> So the most progressive state - with the most government control and interference - is dead last in “quality of life”. Shocking.
> 
> California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study


Oh that sounds horrible! I was going to visit Cali but I guess I will visit the delights of Kansas instead.


----------



## P@triot

WheelieAddict said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the most progressive state - with the most government control and interference - is dead last in “quality of life”. Shocking.
> 
> California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that sounds horrible! I was going to visit Cali but I guess I will visit the delights of Kansas instead.
Click to expand...

Well you’re a miserable person so I think California would be perfect for you. The smog. The cocaine, crack, and heroin. The rampant illegals. The gangs. Please go there. Please. We need people like you to limit their life span.


----------



## WheelieAddict

P@triot said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the most progressive state - with the most government control and interference - is dead last in “quality of life”. Shocking.
> 
> California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that sounds horrible! I was going to visit Cali but I guess I will visit the delights of Kansas instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you’re a miserable person so I think California would be perfect for you. The smog. The cocaine, crack, and heroin. The rampant illegals. The gangs. Please go there. Please. We need people like you to limit their life span.
Click to expand...

Are you implying I'm a bad person and you want me to die before my time because I might visit Cali? 

Are you alright? Maybe lay off the sauce a bit.


----------



## P@triot

WheelieAddict said:


> Maybe lay off the sauce a bit.


I don’t drink. I’ve also never done drugs. I’m not a progressive...


----------



## WheelieAddict

P@triot said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe lay off the sauce a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t drink. I’ve also never done drugs. I’m not a progressive...
Click to expand...

Well you sound a bit mentally unbalanced wishing for me to die early.


----------



## P@triot

WheelieAddict said:


> Well you sound a bit mentally unbalanced wishing for me to die early.


Well...your name is “wheelie addict”, you have an avatar of an idiot doing a “wheelie” on a motorcycle, and you can’t stop talking about “dying early”.

Only one of us sounds “mentally unbalanced” and it sure as hell isn’t me!


----------



## jon_berzerk

P@triot said:


> So the most progressive state - with the most government control and interference - is dead last in “quality of life”. Shocking.
> 
> California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study




in a related note 

the model Utopian state  Venezuela 

where everyone has gotten so poor that the average person 

has lost 26 pounds 

Average Venezuelan Lost 24 Pounds Last Year Due to Economic Woes


----------



## WheelieAddict

P@triot said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you sound a bit mentally unbalanced wishing for me to die early.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...your name is “wheelie addict”, you have an avatar of an idiot doing a “wheelie” on a motorcycle, and you can’t stop talking about “dying early”.
> 
> Only one of us sounds “mentally unbalanced” and it sure as hell isn’t me!
Click to expand...

I'm not the one wishing for another to die early. That was you. So if you insist you have no mental problems then you must simply be a horrible person


----------



## P@triot

WheelieAddict said:


> So if you insist you have no mental problems then *you must simply be a horrible person*


Now _that_ might be true...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .



California has the best climate in the USA.

It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.

These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.

But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote. 

All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.

We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.

A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .



I can name 49.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Oh, wait, I meant 57.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Timmy said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand .  People want to live in California .  Jobs pay more in cali . That's why housing prices are high.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot Timmy.

{Demographic trends themselves are creating a crisis brought about by a population that is simultaneously losing its children and getting older, and to a frightening extent poorer. From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of Los Angeles' population under 15 years old fell by 15.6 percent. *This was the greatest decline of any U.S. major metropolitan area, and about double the U.S. average of 7.4 percent.*}

California is in for a World of Hurt | Newgeography.com

People want to live in California so badly that they are leaving in droves.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
Click to expand...



Try again Comrade.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WheelieAddict said:


> [
> Are you implying I'm a bad person and you want me to die before my time because I might visit Cali?
> 
> Are you alright? Maybe lay off the sauce a bit.



Visiting California isn't what makes you a bad person, Comrade.


----------



## Timmy

Uncensored2008 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the best climate in the USA.
> 
> It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.
> 
> These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.
> 
> But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote.
> 
> All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.
> 
> We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
Click to expand...


All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .  Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .


----------



## P@triot

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Oh, wait, I meant 57.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .


So in Timmy’s mind - a state is a “wasteland” unless they cram people in to live on top of each other, drive up crime rates, and pass out handouts.


----------



## miketx

Timmy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the best climate in the USA.
> 
> It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.
> 
> These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.
> 
> But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote.
> 
> All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.
> 
> We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .  Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .
Click to expand...

you are a lying sack.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .
Click to expand...

As Uncensored2008 already astutely pointed out - California has more natural advantages than _any_ state in the U.S. (including Alaska). It’s one of the top 3 largest states in the nation (just land is a massive advantage as it makes farming available, natural resources available, etc.). It also has climate conducive for agriculture. It has oil. And it borders the ocean - giving it endless advantages for commercial fishing, tourism, and harbors for imports/exports.

And how has California leveraged these unimaginable advantages? By making it the *worst* quality of life in America. Nothing ends in failure like progressivism.


----------



## Timmy

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .
> 
> 
> 
> So in Timmy’s mind - a state is a “wasteland” unless they cram people in to live on top of each other, drive up crime rates, and pass out handouts.
Click to expand...


 In you feeble mind a state is a great success because no one lives in it!  Well that makes so so much sense . 

Ya see, those states where people actually live and work, they are the engines of our economy.


----------



## Dschrute3

P@triot said:


> So the most progressive state - with the most government control and interference - is dead last in “quality of life”. Shocking.
> 
> California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study



It now leads the nation in poverty. It's so tragic. I swear to God, only Communists/Democrats could destroy something so beautiful.


----------



## Timmy

Dschrute3 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the most progressive state - with the most government control and interference - is dead last in “quality of life”. Shocking.
> 
> California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It now leads the nation in poverty. It's so tragic. I swear to God, only Communists/Democrats could destroy something so beautiful.
Click to expand...


That’s a lie .  Look up the poverty stats .  It’s a sea of red states .

And I mean the REAL poverty stats .  Not some fake news Russian stats invented to slander Cali .


----------



## Uncensored2008

Timmy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the best climate in the USA.
> 
> It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.
> 
> These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.
> 
> But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote.
> 
> All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.
> 
> We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .  Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .
Click to expand...



Any US State is better than California. I live here and the once great state is a third world cesspool of leftist rulers driving their Lamborghini's past the thousands living in cardboard boxes along the Santa Ana. Kim Jong Brown bragged that he drove the oil companies out. Where once Union 76 employed 10,000 with good paying, middle class jobs, weeds and snakes now stand. Powerine was sold to developers, but the EPA isn't going to let homes be built on top of petrochemical tanks, so it too stands desolate. The once grand Boeing aircraft facilities along the 55 near the 405 sit empty, Brown and the Maoists have no use for Aerospace and well paying jobs and drove them from the state. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, homes and futures thanks to what the Bolsheviks have done. 

Ah, but Apple bribes the Communist party well, and Cook really doesn't like those middle class usurpers, so Brown and his thugs got rid of them.

California is a dysfunctional dictatorship of the obscenely rich, the legions of government parasites, and the very poor. The Communists have waged war and utterly destroyed the middle class. Just like Venezuela, California is a plutocracy for the elite 1/100th of a percent.


----------



## Uncensored2008

miketx said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the best climate in the USA.
> 
> It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.
> 
> These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.
> 
> But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote.
> 
> All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.
> 
> We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .  Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are a lying sack.
Click to expand...



Nah, he's just stupid.


----------



## Tax Man

So I am enjoying the nice weather here while all you losers are freezing or drowning. Life is great and there is no misery except for that which the republicans are responsible for. And i do not align with them so I am not miserable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tax Man said:


> So I am enjoying the nice weather here while all you losers are freezing or drowning. Life is great and there is no misery except for that which the republicans are responsible for. And i do not align with them so I am not miserable.




You have nice weather in Pyongyang? 

You sure the fuck aren't in California and didn't bother to check the weather today..


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the best climate in the USA.
> 
> It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.
> 
> These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.
> 
> But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote.
> 
> All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.
> 
> We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .  Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Any US State is better than California. I live here and the once great state is a third world cesspool of leftist rulers driving their Lamborghini's past the thousands living in cardboard boxes along the Santa Ana. Kim Jong Brown bragged that he drove the oil companies out. Where once Union 76 employed 10,000 with good paying, middle class jobs, weeds and snakes now stand. Powerine was sold to developers, but the EPA isn't going to let homes be built on top of petrochemical tanks, so it too stands desolate. The once grand Boeing aircraft facilities along the 55 near the 405 sit empty, Brown and the Maoists have no use for Aerospace and well paying jobs and drove them from the state. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, homes and futures thanks to what the Bolsheviks have done.
> 
> Ah, but Apple bribes the Communist party well, and Cook really doesn't like those middle class usurpers, so Brown and his thugs got rid of them.
> 
> California is a dysfunctional dictatorship of the obscenely rich, the legions of government parasites, and the very poor. The Communists have waged war and utterly destroyed the middle class. Just like Venezuela, California is a plutocracy for the elite 1/100th of a percent.
Click to expand...

You just say that because Corona/Chino Hills  is one of the shit hole areas.


----------



## sealybobo

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


Notice the right wingers are really going after California tonight? They hate the Oscars huh?


----------



## Timmy

Uncensored2008 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the best climate in the USA.
> 
> It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.
> 
> These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.
> 
> But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote.
> 
> All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.
> 
> We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .  Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Any US State is better than California. I live here and the once great state is a third world cesspool of leftist rulers driving their Lamborghini's past the thousands living in cardboard boxes along the Santa Ana. Kim Jong Brown bragged that he drove the oil companies out. Where once Union 76 employed 10,000 with good paying, middle class jobs, weeds and snakes now stand. Powerine was sold to developers, but the EPA isn't going to let homes be built on top of petrochemical tanks, so it too stands desolate. The once grand Boeing aircraft facilities along the 55 near the 405 sit empty, Brown and the Maoists have no use for Aerospace and well paying jobs and drove them from the state. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, homes and futures thanks to what the Bolsheviks have done.
> 
> Ah, but Apple bribes the Communist party well, and Cook really doesn't like those middle class usurpers, so Brown and his thugs got rid of them.
> 
> California is a dysfunctional dictatorship of the obscenely rich, the legions of government parasites, and the very poor. The Communists have waged war and utterly destroyed the middle class. Just like Venezuela, California is a plutocracy for the elite 1/100th of a percent.
Click to expand...


So Mississippi is better than Cali?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Timmy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the best climate in the USA.
> 
> It also has two deep water ports. On top of these is Los Angeles which has a massive commercial harbor. San Diego may be the greatest natural harbor in the world.
> 
> These gifts give California a massive advantage. None of them are due to Marxist policies.
> 
> But California has squandered these gifts. The Bolshevik rulers have waged war on manufacturing and driven nearly all industry from the state. To maintain their iron grip on power, the Bolsheviks have imported 10's of millions of third world peasants and bribe them with welfare to vote democrat - and illegals do vote.
> 
> All of this would have caused the state to collapse, even with San Francisco and San Diego, except that the largest enclave of Corporate monopoly power which is Silicone Valley is present. These massive monopolies dwarf Standard Oil or US Steel, with the robber barons of Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sergie Brin beloved of the Stalinist rules, who run the state specifically for these oligarchs.
> 
> We have a state where 70% of the population is in dire poverty, a middle class of no more than 5%, a massive government caste of 25%, with 99% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the Oligarchs.
> 
> A better state than California? Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Main, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alaska, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those states are either big empty wastelands no one lives in,  or government taxpayer sucking leeches .  Texas is maybe the only one that’s got shit going on .  Them and Georgia are the only ones with a real metro area .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Any US State is better than California. I live here and the once great state is a third world cesspool of leftist rulers driving their Lamborghini's past the thousands living in cardboard boxes along the Santa Ana. Kim Jong Brown bragged that he drove the oil companies out. Where once Union 76 employed 10,000 with good paying, middle class jobs, weeds and snakes now stand. Powerine was sold to developers, but the EPA isn't going to let homes be built on top of petrochemical tanks, so it too stands desolate. The once grand Boeing aircraft facilities along the 55 near the 405 sit empty, Brown and the Maoists have no use for Aerospace and well paying jobs and drove them from the state. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, homes and futures thanks to what the Bolsheviks have done.
> 
> Ah, but Apple bribes the Communist party well, and Cook really doesn't like those middle class usurpers, so Brown and his thugs got rid of them.
> 
> California is a dysfunctional dictatorship of the obscenely rich, the legions of government parasites, and the very poor. The Communists have waged war and utterly destroyed the middle class. Just like Venezuela, California is a plutocracy for the elite 1/100th of a percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Mississippi is better than Cali?
Click to expand...



In most ways, yes.

Education is, personal freedom is, civil rights are.

Weather is better in California.


----------



## P@triot

California is like a third-world nation. They can’t keep the electricity on. They don’t enforce the law. They are constantly experiencing earthquakes. They are about to collapse from debt. And their law enforcement kills more unarmed people than Joseph Stalin did.

As public outrage grows, Sacramento police release video of fatal shooting of unarmed man; protesters block freeway


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy...

San Francisco is experiencing a ‘mass exodus.’ The city’s liberal policies are to blame.


----------



## Dschrute3

California will be Venezuela at some point. It's inevitable. It's what happens to every location Communists/Democrats seize control of. But don't think that concerns them. Communists/Democrats need their poor, angry, and helpless masses. The last thing they want, is a happy, prosperous, and independent populace. 

The Party can only thrive on misery. So don't think this is happening by accident. It's part of their Agenda. The more poor, angry, and helpless, the better off the Party is. They're currently decimating California. And it isn't by accident. It's by design. Folks just need to understand their Agenda. And then they need to vigorously oppose it.


----------



## P@triot

History has proven it over and over and over. Conservative policy ends in prosperity every time. Left-wing policy ends in poverty *every* time.


> Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor.


Left-wing policy collapsed Detroit - resulting in an entire city filing for bankruptcy. It is about to do the same thing with the state of California.

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?


----------



## Theowl32

A feudalist utopia. No matter how they rename it or package it, marxism, socialism, communism, and now progressivism, they are all cute arrogant words for feudalism.

The rich class and the completely fucked class. The completely fucked class means that all ambition is stifled.

It is also where desease thrives, and misery flourishes. Look up the facts in regards to the black plague. Mainly it was people from the serf class or peasants that died. Almost seemed like it was a way to cull the herd.

Yes, the more you know.

"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."  Mark Twain


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> History has proven it over and over and over. Conservative policy ends in prosperity every time. Left-wing policy ends in poverty *every* time.
> 
> 
> 
> Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Left-wing policy collapsed Detroit - resulting in an entire city filing for bankruptcy. It is about to do the same thing with the state of California.
> 
> Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?
Click to expand...

Your envy of California is amazing. We are the greatest place on earth to get started making money. And that is why the poor come here. Cause they are not spit on or degraded as unclean. 
Detroit went down because capitalism left it in a lurch. Learn your history and quite repeating the fascist mantra.


----------



## P@triot

ScienceRocks said:


> Lol, *Califorina is one of the riches and most advance economies on this planet*. Do you know what real misery is? Asshole? Mississippi, Alabama and most of the south are truly the poorest, least educated and most backwards shit holes this country has to offer.


Indisputable proof that ScienceRocks _completely_ *devoid* of facts.


> Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor.


Left-wing policy collapsed Detroit - resulting in an entire city filing for bankruptcy. It is about to do the same thing with the state of California.

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Detroit went down because capitalism left it in a lurch.


Then why didn’t Dallas “go down”, _stupid_? They operated under more capitalism than Detroit. Oops.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Your envy of California is amazing.


Your ignorance of basic economics is more amazing.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> We are the greatest place on earth to get started making money.


Clearly not...or you wouldn’t lead the nation in poverty.


----------



## P@triot

The Dumbocrats “War on Poverty” continues to expand poverty.


> The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.


Psst...Dumbocrats...when you subsidize failure you get _more_ failure. How is the left too stupid to understand something so basic?

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?


----------



## Theowl32

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are the greatest place on earth to get started making money.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not...or you wouldn’t lead the nation in poverty.
Click to expand...

Nothing more pathetic and useless than a rich white American socialist  (any socialist, but especially the American ones.)

Nothing dumber than middle class socialists, especially the white American middle class socialists. 

Not a bigger group of useful idiots than poor Americans who are fat due to the American free market, who advocate for socialism.


----------



## P@triot

It’s nearly impossible to articulate the astounding stupidity of our “friends” on the left.


> Hefty new taxes aren’t the only reason why ordinary Californians are leery of single-payer.
> 
> Many voters don’t realize that single-payer means there would be only one health insurance plan statewide — a government-run one. 52% of Democrats, mistakenly believe they’d be able to keep their current plans in a single-payer system, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study.


These dimwits actually failed to understand that *single-payer* meant a *single* entity for healthcare coverage for all residents. When you read stuff like this, it’s easy to see why they vote Dumbocrat.

Californians like single-payer health care — until they learn taxes must rise to pay for it


----------



## TheMoreYouKnow

Holy ALT-RIGHT WeakWhyte Hucklefvck!   The Neo-Confeds (who celebrate their traitor wretched past) are ripping on California, the 5th largest economy in the world, about providing taxes to subsidize and balance their own state budgets?   What part of their own socialism do they hate now?


----------



## ptbw forever

jasonnfree said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO! That’s the response of a second grader. It’s a shit-hole state and _everyone_ knows it. People and businesses are fleeing in record numbers. Your juvenile “losers can’t make it there” excuse is as pitiful as you are.
> 
> It’s a state that promotes and supports promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual assault on women and children, drug use, illegal aliens, and communism among other things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.
Click to expand...

California actually isn't all that diverse.


----------



## P@triot

It’s impossible to overstate just what a miserable shit-hole California has become thanks to *failed* left-wing policy.


> California was the third deep blue state to experience significant domestic out-migration between July 2016 and July 2017, and it couldn’t blame the outflow on retirees searching for a more agreeable climate.


Americans cannot flee that miserable state fast enough.

Nearly 450,000 People Fled These 3 Deep Blue States in 2017


----------



## P@triot

TheMoreYouKnow said:


> Holy ALT-RIGHT WeakWhyte Hucklefvck!   The Neo-Confeds (who celebrate their traitor wretched past) are ripping on California, the 5th largest economy in the world, about providing taxes to subsidize and balance their own state budgets?


Holy ALT-LEFT FragileSnowflake Hucklefag! You can lie all you want my dear queer, the *facts* don’t:


> Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor.


Left-wing policy collapsed Detroit - resulting in an entire city filing for bankruptcy. It is about to do the same thing with the state of California.
*
Poverty capital of America*.

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?


----------



## P@triot

TheMoreYouKnow said:


> Holy ALT-RIGHT WeakWhyte Hucklefvck!   The Neo-Confeds (who celebrate their traitor wretched past) are ripping on California, the 5th largest economy in the world, about providing taxes to subsidize *and balance their own state budgets*?


Holy ALT-LEFT FragileSnowflake Hucklefag! In what idiotic, queer, left-wing world is a _staggering_ $400 billion state debt a “balanced budget”? 

California’s $400 billion debt worries analysts


----------



## toobfreak

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



"A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt."  You left out perversion.  As to the OP, from felony to misdemeanor?  Absolutely stunning.  These people of Brown, Pelosi and the like------  sick, fucked in the head seditious scum.  Brown needs hooked up to 440 VAC and left go until smoke starts coming out of his ears.


----------



## P@triot

Only a shit-hole like California would allow people to riot but would stop a man from building a playhouse for his daughter.


> “Six months ongoing, I don’t know why the city is fighting it so hard,” Adomeit said. “I just want what’s safe and best for my daughter. I just want my daughter to have a safe place to play.”


I can tell you why, Mr. Adomeit. Because progressives are power-hungry totalitarians who want to exert control over others. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves at the realization that all of their sacrifices have been so squandered - a man can’t even build a littlest playhouse for his own daughter on his own property.

California man fined, banned from building his daughter a playhouse on land he owns


----------



## Tax Man

The Blaze? A real shit source for "news". The problem is building codes. Real simple. I am very happy in California knowing YOU do not live here to make life a misery.


----------



## Tax Man

toobfreak said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt."  You left out perversion.  As to the OP, from felony to misdemeanor?  Absolutely stunning.  These people of Brown, Pelosi and the like------  sick, fucked in the head seditious scum.  Brown needs hooked up to 440 VAC and left go until smoke starts coming out of his ears.
Click to expand...

Your envy of my glorious state is noted. It is you who is sick, fucked in the head, scum.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> The Blaze? A real shit source for "news". *The problem is building codes*. Real simple. I am very happy in California knowing YOU do not live here to make life a misery.


And who created the building codes? The idiot progressives of the shit-state of California.


----------



## deanrd

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


The world's seventh largest economy is an embarrassment?

But Appalachia, where life expectancy is down and infant mortality is up, where many don't have electricity or running water who get their heat from chopping down trees and which covers 13 Red States is doing fine?

Republicans are messed up.  Their values are upside down.


----------



## deanrd

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


>








It's not California that works for Putin.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Your envy of my glorious state is noted.


Only a progressive could consider a state over flowing with crime, illegal aliens, drugs, and debt while promoting oppression, promiscuity, and socialism to be “glorious”.


----------



## P@triot

deanrd said:


> The world's seventh largest economy is an embarrassment?


Yes. If you are the world’s “seventh largest economy” and yet you have $700 billion in *debt* - you are an absolute embarrassment. If the state’s economy is soooooooo good, California should be swimming in _trillions_ of dollars in surplus.


----------



## toobfreak

Tax Man said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt."  You left out perversion.  As to the OP, from felony to misdemeanor?  Absolutely stunning.  These people of Brown, Pelosi and the like------  sick, fucked in the head seditious scum.  Brown needs hooked up to 440 VAC and left go until smoke starts coming out of his ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your envy of my glorious state is noted. It is you who is sick, fucked in the head, scum.
Click to expand...



I'm thinking you're cornfused tax man.  The quote in the blue was someone else's words!  I love the state of California, just hate how its been ruined by its politicians.  And many Californians I know I agree.  You see, I've spent a lot of time out there.  But if you think the likes of Brown, Pelosi and their ilk are doing a good job for you, well, you are getting what you deserve, screwed right up the ass.  Bring plenty of Vaseline.


----------



## P@triot

The progressive *false* narrative:


> We love people. We have a deep humanitarian spirit. All we want is love for everyone and equality for all


The progressive *reality*:


> Get the fuck away from me, you filthy homeless animals. Stay away from me and stay away from my community. I cannot have you showing up in the background of my selfies on Facebook. Eat shit and die you worthless creatures



California residents in affluent cities don’t want the homeless housed in their neighborhoods


----------



## francoHFW

Despite the GOP inviting illegals illegals Into California forever by blocking good SS card, California is great and successful. Despite all your hate and Bs propaganda, hater dupes. WTF is wrong with you? Brainwashed tools


----------



## P@triot

Nobody does stupid like California...

Podcast: California Shows Progressive Policies Don't Work


----------



## P@triot

California- the quintessential progressive shithole.


> Remarkably, this amazingly rich state now has the country’s highest poverty rates and lowest rating for “quality of life.”


Way to go, left-wingers. Highest poverty, lowest quality of life. The exact opposite of what conservative policy delivers.

The Changes That Made California Become a Liberal Fiasco


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> California- the quintessential progressive shithole.
> 
> 
> 
> Remarkably, this amazingly rich state now has the country’s highest poverty rates and lowest rating for “quality of life.”
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go, left-wingers. Highest poverty, lowest quality of life. The exact opposite of what conservative policy delivers.
> 
> The Changes That Made California Become a Liberal Fiasco
Click to expand...

You must really hate our great state of California. I can not see who is more miserable than a state like tennassnsse cause we are in hog heaven here. By the way money is earned unless you live in a shit state of the southern US.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> You must really hate our great state of California. I can not see who is more miserable than a state like *tennassnsse* cause we are in hog heaven here. *By the way money is earned unless* you live in a shit state of the southern US.


This is why you shouldn’t drink and post...


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## P@triot

Synthaholic said:


> View attachment 189224


A $6 billion "surplus", Synthaholic?!? Oh sweetie... 

State of California Debt Clock

Nobody is easier to dupe with propaganda than SynthaStupid.


----------



## P@triot

Just when you think that California couldn’t possibly be any more disturbed, disgusting, or depraved, they take their repulsiveness to a whole new level...

California Bans Parents From Pulling Kids From ‘Obscene’ LGBT Sex Ed Classes


----------



## P@triot

The left will not rest until they can eliminate all constitutional rights...


> If the measure becomes law, it could *punish* speakers like Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation if they appear in California to advocate a traditional view of marriage and human sexuality.


“Punish” people for their religious views? “Punish” people for speaking? Fascism in its purest form.

California Considers Bill That Would Make Traditional Views on Sexuality Illegal


----------



## P@triot

California is such a shit-hole. It's unbelievable. They lead the U.S. in every negative metric (such as debt) and are dead-last in every metric one would want to be top in (such as affordable fuels and quality of life).


> Motorists in California, *the state with the most expensive gasoline*, could see pump prices that begin with a 4 again as oil markets rally.


The state has all of the natural resources to be a paradise. Instead, left-wing policy has turned the state into a near third-world shit-hole. South Central Los Angeles is a mess. Hollywood is a cesspool of drugs and sexual violence. The state has more gangs and gang violence than all other 49 states combined.

California Could See the Return of $4 Gasoline by May


----------



## P@triot

California is such a shit-hole. They are devoted to violating and destroying the U.S. Constitution...

California teachers pension fund threatens companies financially over gun control issues


----------



## P@triot

Billionaire Tom Steyer won’t share his wealth with destitute people who need it, but he will spend his money on propaganda to defeat Republicans. Why? Because the left isn’t the least bit interested in helping _anyone_. They are interested in one thing and one thing only: *power*. They want complete and total control over you.

Here’s the anti-Trump ad from a California billionaire that even liberals say helps Trump


----------



## EvilCat Breath

California is the charnel pit of the United States.


----------



## P@triot

No surprise here - the top three most expensive metro areas in the U.S. are in California and five of the top 7 are in California.


----------



## P@triot

California has literally decomposed into a third-world shit-hole. The state has been so severely decimated by failed left-wing policy, that residents can no longer take a shower and do their laundry on the same day.


> To make a long story short, now that these bills are law, it’s illegal to take a shower and do a load of laundry in the same day because you’ll exceed your “ration.”


The state with the largest ocean-front coastline has to ration _water_. Water! They also announced today that over 10,000 businesses have fled California since 2008.

In California, You Can't Shower and Do Laundry on the Same Day


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



Did you actually read the story from 2017? You had 7 months.


----------



## OnePercenter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


>



California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.


----------



## easyt65

California keeps diving deeper and deeper into the criminal end of politics / agenda by expanding access for illegals to tax payer-funded Medicaid.

Enough of California making the decision to hand MY tax dollars over to a bunch of illegals. If the federal govt can't cut the state off, it should send in federal Marshalls to begin arresting the criminal politicians illegally spending tax dollars / aiding and abetting illegals.




_"The bill, known as AB 2965, passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly 33-21 on Wednesday. The proposal would eliminate legal residency requirements in California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, and the state has already nixed the requirement for individuals younger than 19.

Offering full-cost coverage would cost the state $3 billion for the 2018-2019 year, according to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Did you notice what they estimated the cost to be? An extra $3B just this year. And that’s when they’re already scrambling to figure out what they’ll do when they lose all the revenue from the new gas tax in the upcoming referendum. California previously talked about a single payer plan to cover all of the people legally in the state and that one would have shot their budget into an orbit around Uranus."_


California votes to expand Medicaid to illegal aliens


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.


Uh....all left-wing policy keeps people poor. Why do you think everywhere you find a Democrat Mayor and a Democrat city council, you find a ghetto? Detroit had 65 years of ultra left-wing utopia. Complete control by Democrats (Mayor and city council), the most powerful labor union in the _world_ (UAW), and all of the taxes and regulations they desired. What happened? The entire city literally went bankrupt. Bankrupt.

And don't even attempt to blame Reagan or other Republican presidents because other cities flourished under those same presidents, slick.


----------



## OnePercenter

Detroit failed because Nixon allowed Japan to product dump.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Detroit failed because Nixon allowed Japan to product dump.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.


> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"


Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.

SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.
> 
> SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common
Click to expand...


Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.


----------



## Thinker101

OnePercenter said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.
> 
> SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.
Click to expand...


6th?!  Here just a couple of days ago we were 5th....it's happening quick.


----------



## OnePercenter

Thinker101 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.
> 
> SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6th?!  Here just a couple of days ago we were 5th....it's happening quick.
Click to expand...


More deceptive ignorance commie?


----------



## Thinker101

OnePercenter said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.
> 
> SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6th?!  Here just a couple of days ago we were 5th....it's happening quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More deceptive ignorance commie?
Click to expand...


Evidently you need to get your info from someplace other than Fakebook....dumbass.
california economy 5 largest - Bing video


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.


That’s because just a few short years ago, it was run by Republicans (like Arnold Schwarzenegger). But since then, it’s been a steady decline to liberal hell. Already the failed left-wing policies you’ve been conditioned to buy into have caused water to be rationed.


----------



## OnePercenter

Thinker101 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.
> 
> SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6th?!  Here just a couple of days ago we were 5th....it's happening quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More deceptive ignorance commie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently you need to get your info from someplace other than Fakebook....dumbass.
> california economy 5 largest - Bing video
Click to expand...


Economy or GDP?


----------



## Rustic

OnePercenter said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.
> 
> SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.
Click to expand...

Thanks to rural areas, and conservative capitalists...


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because just a few short years ago, it was run by Republicans (like Arnold Schwarzenegger). But since then, it’s been a steady decline to liberal hell. Already the failed left-wing policies you’ve been conditioned to buy into have caused water to be rationed.
Click to expand...


A Chick-fil-A operator is paying $17.00/hr in California. His store can afford it, why not the rest. 

What would Jesus do?


----------



## OnePercenter

Rustic said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - they destroy countries,"
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy collapsed the U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela, and Detroit. It will collapse California as well.
> 
> SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country. California has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Also beats your Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to rural areas, and conservative capitalists...
Click to expand...


Isn't tech the #1 money maker?


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.
Click to expand...



DERP

What does that even mean, fraud?



US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns

I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> A Chick-fil-A operator is paying $17.00/hr in California. His store can afford it, why not the rest.


That store may receive tax breaks that other stores don’t (like Twitter does from the city of San Francisco). That store may have higher volume than other stores. That store may have lower materials expenses. That store may have to pay more due to a labor shortage in the area.

It could be a million reasons that you are not privy to. Stop thinking like a 5-year old.


OnePercenter said:


> What would Jesus do?


He would say that stealing is a sin. And that’s what government is doing when they place a gun to the head of citizens and takes their money.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Venezuela is a third world country.


Yeah...thanks to *failed* left-wing policy. You’re slowly starting to get it.


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
Click to expand...


When did I write "fraud?" 

Here's fraud...






While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad. 

When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...thanks to *failed* left-wing policy. You’re slowly starting to get it.
Click to expand...


Venezuela has always been a third world country.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...thanks to *failed* left-wing policy. You’re slowly starting to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has always been a third world country.
Click to expand...

Yeah....no it wasn’t. 

It was one of the wealthiest nations in the world (14th, I think?) thanks to their oil resources. Then the left got greedy, called for socialism, and the entire nation has been a shit-hole ever since (just like Detroit!).


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet.


That’s an indictment on their inability to live within their means - not an indictment on our economy. If they didn’t have to have the latest iPhone every six months, they wouldn’t need to work multiple jobs.


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Chick-fil-A operator is paying $17.00/hr in California. His store can afford it, why not the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> That store may receive tax breaks that other stores don’t (like Twitter does from the city of San Francisco). That store may have higher volume than other stores. That store may have lower materials expenses. That store may have to pay more due to a labor shortage in the area.
> 
> It could be a million reasons that you are not privy to. Stop thinking like a 5-year old.
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would say that stealing is a sin. And that’s what government is doing when they place a gun to the head of citizens and takes their money.
Click to expand...


Are you really going to debate me using the words "may" and "could?"

Try reading the story.

The government collects taxes which most is used for taxpayer based services which benefit you. Or are you one of those that thinks you shouldn't have to pay for it?


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s an indictment on their inability to live within their means - not an indictment on our economy. If they didn’t have to have the latest iPhone every six months, they wouldn’t need to work multiple jobs.
Click to expand...


Oh so ignorant. Costs have outpaced wages.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Are you really going to debate me using the words "may" and "could?"


What choice do I have when you make shit up? 

You have absolutely no clue about the financial records of that particular franchisee. And yet you ignorantly attempt to claim that if one store in one location can do it, the entire world can.

Furthermore, even if the entire world _could_, so what? A business owner has the *right* to set his/her own prices and his/her own compensation packages. The world is so tired of you lazy, greedy, entitled progressives.

You want to dictate how much money you make? Start your own damn business - you worthless, lazy, parasite. Stop mooching off of other great men and women who actually did something with their lives.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Costs have outpaced wages.


Yeah...because you progressives - who can’t comprehend basic economics - keep raising minimum wage (now to _extreme_ levels). When a business has new labor costs, the price of their products and services skyrockets to cover the new labor costs.

Therefore, the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before their increase. In fact, they are even further behind. Due to the greed and ignorance of progressives, Venezuela is being recreated right here in the U.S.

Study reveals workers earn LESS after minimum wage hike

UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> The government collects taxes which most is used for taxpayer based services which benefit you.


Exactly. That’s exactly the point of taxes. And yet progressives have illegally perverted it into redistributing money.

My taxes are supposed to pay the salaries of the people _serving_ in government. So tell me - what service is the welfare recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*? What service is the food stamp recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*? What service is the government-subsidized housing recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*? What service is the Medicaid recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*?

None of them work for government. None of them were elected or appointed to a public role. None of them perform a service. You have stolen from the people and illegally redistributed wealth because you are greedy, lazy, and ignorant.


----------



## candycorn

Somehow, I still think my flight next month into LAX will be full, the flight home, not so much.  The 405 will be bumper to bumper, every place that is worth being in Los Angeles will be standing room only.  Finding a parking spot in San Francisco is like finding life on mars.  Yosemite will be crowded until the temperature changes, the beaches will be full….  

Essentially the most miserable day in California is better than most other states on their best day.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

California is undergoing population replacement.  The productive middle class is leaving but immigrants are arriving in even greater numbers.  Those that pay into the system are being replaced by those who take from the system.


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...thanks to *failed* left-wing policy. You’re slowly starting to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has always been a third world country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah....no it wasn’t.
> 
> It was one of the wealthiest nations in the world (14th, I think?) thanks to their oil resources. Then the left got greedy, called for socialism, and the entire nation has been a shit-hole ever since (just like Detroit!).
Click to expand...


It was one of the wealthiest nations in South America. Greed at the top is why it isn't today.

Detroit failed because Nixon allowed Japan to product dump.


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going to debate me using the words "may" and "could?"
> 
> 
> 
> What choice do I have when you make shit up?
> 
> You have absolutely no clue about the financial records of that particular franchisee. And yet you ignorantly attempt to claim that if one store in one location can do it, the entire world can.
> 
> Furthermore, even if the entire world _could_, so what? A business owner has the *right* to set his/her own prices and his/her own compensation packages. The world is so tired of you lazy, greedy, entitled progressives.
> 
> You want to dictate how much money you make? Start your own damn business - you worthless, lazy, parasite. Stop mooching off of other great men and women who actually did something with their lives.
Click to expand...


I made up the fact there is a Chick-fil-A in California that is currently paying $17.00/hr?

I've Angel Invested restaurants. I know how much revenue they make.

Are you saying that a business owner has an entitled right to set his/her own prices and his/her own compensation packages?

FYI, I'm a capitalist racketeer.

I own five businesses with >200M in revenue. 

A living wage ISN'T an entitlement, it's a moral obligation to his/her employees that make all of the monies. McDonalds raising their dividend return from 19 to 55% (1999 to 2015) is an entitlement.


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Costs have outpaced wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because you progressives - who can’t comprehend basic economics - keep raising minimum wage (now to _extreme_ levels). When a business has new labor costs, the price of their products and services skyrockets to cover the new labor costs.
> 
> Therefore, the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before their increase. In fact, they are even further behind. Due to the greed and ignorance of progressives, Venezuela is being recreated right here in the U.S.
> 
> Study reveals workers earn LESS after minimum wage hike
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
Click to expand...


The only "extreme levels" of business spending are investor returns and record profit. That is why prices increase.

Again, Venezuela's financial issues have to do with greed from the top, much like here in the US.


----------



## OnePercenter

P@triot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government collects taxes which most is used for taxpayer based services which benefit you.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That’s exactly the point of taxes. And yet progressives have illegally perverted it into redistributing money.
> 
> My taxes are supposed to pay the salaries of the people _serving_ in government. So tell me - what service is the welfare recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*? What service is the food stamp recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*? What service is the government-subsidized housing recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*? What service is the Medicaid recipient performing for *me* _or_ for *society*?
> 
> None of them work for government. None of them were elected or appointed to a public role. None of them perform a service. You have stolen from the people and illegally redistributed wealth because you are greedy, lazy, and ignorant.
Click to expand...


I notice you didn't include corporate subsidizing which costs more than social welfare.

If employers paid a living wage, wouldn't that reduce or eliminate most if not all social welfare?


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> Detroit failed because Nixon allowed Japan to product dump.


It's a cute (albeit idiotic) excuse but it doesn't hold up. Detroit failed because it was run by Dumbocrats. If Nixon had anything to do with it, many cities would have failed (all cities had the same Nixon as president, genius).


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> If employers paid a living wage


All employers pay a "living wage". All of them. Even the little ice cream shop at the corner paying a 15-year old to work there 3 hours a day. Stop trying to blame a "problem" that doesn't exist because you can't accept that *failed*, idiotic left-wing policy is the problem.


OnePercenter said:


> wouldn't that reduce or eliminate most if not all social welfare?


If we abided by the U.S. Constitution, would it eliminate all welfare? Yes. Yes it would. And at no detriment to the economy, an employer, or the labor force.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> A living wage ISN'T an entitlement, it's a moral obligation to his/her employees that make all of the monies.


1. Minimum wage is a "living wage". No matter how many times you repeat that idiotic lie, it won't become true.

2. No - there is no "moral obligation" by the employer. None. They set a compensation, an employee either rejects or accepts it. That's the beauty of the free market. Everyone is free to choose for themselves. It speaks volumes that you want everything done at the barrel of a gun. Saddam Hussein did too.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> I own five businesses with >200M in revenue.


So then _you_ are the problem. If you haven't given all $200 million of that revenue to homeless, hungry, and uninsured people then you are a typical progress hypocrite! Greedy.


----------



## P@triot

OnePercenter said:


> I made up the fact there is a Chick-fil-A in California that is currently paying $17.00/hr?


No. You've made up what other franchisee's can and can't afford based on your observation of one store (of which you have absolutely no clue about their financial statement). As I said in my previous post - this one store may enjoy tax breaks that other stores don't enjoy. They may enjoy volume that other stores don't enjoy. Or the owner may be ok with a lower profit. In any case, it has ZERO reflection on other stores or reality.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Essentially the most miserable day in California is better than most other states on their best day.


True...if one prefers the worst quality of life in the U.S., the highest levels of poverty, no electricity, no water, and a high crime rate.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Somehow, I still think my flight next month into LAX will be full, the flight home, not so much.  The 405 will be bumper to bumper, every place that is worth being in Los Angeles will be standing room only.  Finding a parking spot in San Francisco is like finding life on mars.  Yosemite will be crowded until the temperature changes, the beaches will be full….


Well that's what happens when you announce to another nation that you will not attempt to stop them from invading your nation. You have 20 million *illegal* Mexicans and Central Americans causing the "bumper to bumper" on the 405 (not to mention the fact that you even brag about California's inability to handle their traffic properly proves that Dumbocrats are not fit for office at any level).

I just hope you don't run into any MS-13 dirt bags on your little trip. I know you think they are eternally grateful to you - but they are not. They would like nothing better than to brutally rape and murder you. But hey - yeah progressive policy!


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially the most miserable day in California is better than most other states on their best day.
> 
> 
> 
> True...if one prefers the worst quality of life in the U.S., the highest levels of poverty, no electricity, no water, and a high crime rate.
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I still think my flight next month into LAX will be full, the flight home, not so much.  The 405 will be bumper to bumper, every place that is worth being in Los Angeles will be standing room only.  Finding a parking spot in San Francisco is like finding life on mars.  Yosemite will be crowded until the temperature changes, the beaches will be full….
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what happens when you announce to another nation that you will not attempt to stop them from invading your nation. You have 20 million *illegal* Mexicans and Central Americans causing the "bumper to bumper" on the 405 (not to mention the fact that you even brag about California's inability to handle their traffic properly proves that Dumbocrats are not fit for office at any level).
> 
> I just hope you don't run into any MS-13 dirt bags on your little trip. I know you think they are eternally grateful to you - but they are not. They would like nothing better than to brutally rape and murder you. But hey - yeah progressive policy!
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is the only remarkable thing about you.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Your ignorance is the only remarkable thing about you.


That's sort of what every wing-nut says once they are trapped in a corner with facts and left with no where to go with their narrative.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Your ignorance is the only remarkable thing about you.


Incidentally, as a woman, how can you use an avatar of Carrie Fisher being sexually assaulted? Aside from the current nightmare of the #MeToo movement due to the filth of Hollywood, Carrie Fisher was _actually_ a sexual assault victim.

One would think a woman who have much better taste. But, the left never ceases to amaze me with their lawlessness, classlessness, and war on women.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is the only remarkable thing about you.
> 
> 
> 
> That's sort of what every wing-nut says once they are trapped in a corner with facts and left with no where to go with their narrative.
Click to expand...


Yeah…all 20 million illegals in California are on the 405.  Almost as crazy as the last right winger who insisted that white people do not litter.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is the only remarkable thing about you.
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, as a woman, how can you use an avatar of Carrie Fisher being sexually assaulted? Aside from the current nightmare of the #MeToo movement due to the filth of Hollywood, Carrie Fisher was actually assaulted.
> 
> One would think a woman who have much better taste. But, the left never ceases to amaze me with their lawlessness, classlessness, and war on women.
Click to expand...


The same way you call yourself a patriot…clearly you have no idea what America is about.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


How bout 49?

There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living. 

California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> The same way you call yourself a patriot…clearly you have no idea what America is about.


My dear, you would be hard-pressed to find 10 people in the U.S. who are as passionate and knowledgeable about the founding of this nation and our documents as I am.


----------



## P@triot

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49? There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living. California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
Click to expand...

I’m with you, GMU. I refuse to even step foot in California of New York. Two progressive shit-holes. Ungodly taxes, crime ridden, lawless, over crowded, and miserable.


----------



## Ame®icano




----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way you call yourself a patriot…clearly you have no idea what America is about.
> 
> 
> 
> My dear, you would be hard-pressed to find 10 people in the U.S. who are as passionate and knowledgeable about the founding of this nation and our documents as I am.
Click to expand...


Uh..no.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49? There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living. California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m with you, GMU. I refuse to even step foot in California of New York. Two progressive shit-holes. Ungodly taxes, crime ridden, lawless, over crowded, and miserable.
Click to expand...


Nobody misses you. I would suspect nobody ever has.


----------



## candycorn

Grampa Murked U said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
Click to expand...






You're right...disgusting. LOL


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
Click to expand...


I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?  

california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
Click to expand...



You are a fraud.

Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.

Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.

You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?
> 
> california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search
Click to expand...


So you agree with the entire state being an outhouse?


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a third world country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...thanks to *failed* left-wing policy. You’re slowly starting to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela has always been a third world country.
Click to expand...



Nope, Venezuela was the most prosperous nation in South America prior to the Marxist takeover by Hugo Clinton, er I mean Barrack Chavez, uh Bernie Tse Tung...

Lying won't help you, fraud.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?
> 
> california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree with the entire state being an outhouse?
Click to expand...


Is that what I said?  Why so defensive?  The state has some serious problems with homelessness.  Fact.


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?
> 
> california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?
> 
> california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree with the entire state being an outhouse?
Click to expand...


Do you think that perhaps they are being overwhelmed since announcing themselves a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants?  That is probably one of their biggest problems, well that an apparently the exorbitant cost of housing there which nobody except the wealthy can really afford.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?
> 
> california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197221
Click to expand...


What on earth?   The fact of the matter is that some parts of California are not doing so well.  Does that offend you or something?  Truth really does hurt liberal feelings, apparently.    Lol.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> You're right...disgusting. LOL


We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...


----------



## ChrisL

Leftards are such weirdos.  Lol.


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?
> 
> california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree with the entire state being an outhouse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I said?  Why so defensive?  The state has some serious problems with homelessness.  Fact.
Click to expand...


Simple question....yes or no.


----------



## ChrisL

Uncensored2008 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.
> 
> Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.
> 
> You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.
Click to expand...


I am highly doubtful that anyone who is fabulously wealthy would be here at USMB posting amongst the riff raff.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...
> 
> View attachment 197223 View attachment 197224
Click to expand...


Gee Chris...you going to say something to him about posting pictures that don't tell the whole story?

Didn't think so.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout 49?
> 
> There are not many places I refuse to visit, much less consider living.
> 
> California is Americas outhouse. You can have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 197207
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that posting pictures of resorts or beaches doesn't tell the true story.  There are REAL PROBLEMS with homelessness, people using the streets as their bathroom and hypodermic needles being found lying around on the ground going on there.  Why do you want to just deny that fact?  What is with the leftists denying FACTS and just trying to avoid the truth?
> 
> california and their problems with homelessness - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree with the entire state being an outhouse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I said?  Why so defensive?  The state has some serious problems with homelessness.  Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple question....yes or no.
Click to expand...


Simple question.  Did I say that anywhere?  

I asked you a question first.  Why do you deny that CA is having a problem with homelessness?


----------



## P@triot

What a miserable shit-hole state...


> In 2016, local government told a young California girl that she’d have to pay $3,500 in permits and building code upgrades in order to sell lemonade.


Progressives will not tolerate _anything_ that they cannot control and tax. Even small children playing and learning the basics.

Lemonade company to pay fines of kids busted for selling lemonade at stands without permits


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...
> 
> View attachment 197223 View attachment 197224
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee Chris...you going to say something to him about posting pictures that don't tell the whole story?
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


But he is right in that CA is having a problem with homelessness.  He is posting pictures of areas where homelessness is a problem.  You, OTOH, are denying that there is a problem because . . . some strange reason.  You don't want to admit that some of your leftist economic policies are not conducive to a productive society?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...
> 
> View attachment 197223 View attachment 197224
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee Chris...you going to say something to him about posting pictures that don't tell the whole story? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Because Chris knows I was merely proving that you were posting propaganda bullshit.


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.
> 
> Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.
> 
> You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am highly doubtful that anyone who is fabulously wealthy would be here at USMB posting amongst the riff raff.
Click to expand...


HereWeGoAgain says he lives off of dividend income...which is usually about 15 cents to  a dollar fifty per quarter per share.  



HereWeGoAgain said:


> Here's how it works skippy.....take note.
> I retired 6 years ago at 46 because my dividends allowed it.
> I bring in around 30k a year while doing nothing.
> The wife will work for another 4 or 5 years bringing in around 170k a year plus a 30 or 40k bonus yearly.
> Once her stocks mature we will have an income of 150k a year even if we dont collect SS,and that doesnt even include our individual 401k's.
> It's called hard work and planning,.



A rare moment of honesty from Chris


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...
> 
> View attachment 197223 View attachment 197224
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee Chris...you going to say something to him about posting pictures that don't tell the whole story?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he is right in that CA is having a problem with homelessness.  He is posting pictures of areas where homelessness is a problem.  You, OTOH, are denying that there is a problem because . . . some strange reason.  You don't want to admit that some of your leftist economic policies are not conducive to a productive society?
Click to expand...


Never said any such thing.  

As for a "productive society", California's GDP 5th in the world.  

Try again.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.
> 
> Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.
> 
> You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am highly doubtful that anyone who is fabulously wealthy would be here at USMB posting amongst the riff raff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain says he lives off of dividend income...which is usually about 15 cents to  a dollar fifty per quarter per share.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how it works skippy.....take note.
> I retired 6 years ago at 46 because my dividends allowed it.
> I bring in around 30k a year while doing nothing.
> The wife will work for another 4 or 5 years bringing in around 170k a year plus a 30 or 40k bonus yearly.
> Once her stocks mature we will have an income of 150k a year even if we dont collect SS,and that doesnt even include our individual 401k's.
> It's called hard work and planning,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rare moment of honesty from Chris
Click to expand...


Are you confused?


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...
> 
> View attachment 197223 View attachment 197224
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee Chris...you going to say something to him about posting pictures that don't tell the whole story?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he is right in that CA is having a problem with homelessness.  He is posting pictures of areas where homelessness is a problem.  You, OTOH, are denying that there is a problem because . . . some strange reason.  You don't want to admit that some of your leftist economic policies are not conducive to a productive society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said any such thing.
> 
> As for a "productive society", California's GDP 5th in the world.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


this thread is about the homelessness problems where people are setting up camps on the streets, in parks, have no homes, nowhere to sleep, nothing to eat, no jobs and rent/mortgage are way out of their reach.  You call that success and productive?  The only reason why CA ranks high is because of it's size.


----------



## P@triot

Here is California. This is the progressive idea of the “American Dream”


----------



## P@triot

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for a "productive society", California's GDP 5th in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> You call that success and productive?  The only reason why CA ranks high is because of it's size.
Click to expand...

Not only that Chris, but they have the most remarkable natural resources of any of the 50 states in the U.S. (oil, perfect weather and an abundance of land for agriculture, longest coast of ocean front property of any state, etc.). And what do they have to show for it? $800 billion in debt, worst quality of life in America, and the most homelessness in the U.S.


----------



## candycorn

Bixby Bridge...



Pure Majesty.

Mt. Shasta




Incredible...

However, I did wonder why at Gladstones in Malibu and Javiers in Newport never seem to have an opening on Friday or Saturday night.  Obviously, it's the illegal aliens; they seem to have an elevated pallet and thirst for pistachio encrusted tuna or lobster enchiladas.





A-holes.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> California isn't supporting Putin by keeping American workers poor....unlike you tRump chumps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.
> 
> Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.
> 
> You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am highly doubtful that anyone who is fabulously wealthy would be here at USMB posting amongst the riff raff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain says he lives off of dividend income...which is usually about 15 cents to  a dollar fifty per quarter per share.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how it works skippy.....take note.
> I retired 6 years ago at 46 because my dividends allowed it.
> I bring in around 30k a year while doing nothing.
> The wife will work for another 4 or 5 years bringing in around 170k a year plus a 30 or 40k bonus yearly.
> Once her stocks mature we will have an income of 150k a year even if we dont collect SS,and that doesnt even include our individual 401k's.
> It's called hard work and planning,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rare moment of honesty from Chris
Click to expand...


   No ...It's actually only part of our income.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Obviously, it's the illegal aliens; they seem to have an elevated pallet and thirst for pistachio encrusted tuna or lobster enchiladas.
> 
> View attachment 197230
> 
> A-holes.


Did CC just call illegal aliens “a-holes”?


----------



## candycorn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.
> 
> Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.
> 
> You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am highly doubtful that anyone who is fabulously wealthy would be here at USMB posting amongst the riff raff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain says he lives off of dividend income...which is usually about 15 cents to  a dollar fifty per quarter per share.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how it works skippy.....take note.
> I retired 6 years ago at 46 because my dividends allowed it.
> I bring in around 30k a year while doing nothing.
> The wife will work for another 4 or 5 years bringing in around 170k a year plus a 30 or 40k bonus yearly.
> Once her stocks mature we will have an income of 150k a year even if we dont collect SS,and that doesnt even include our individual 401k's.
> It's called hard work and planning,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rare moment of honesty from Chris
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No ...It's actually only part of our income.
Click to expand...


I'm sure Chris will be here to argue with you.  Oh wait, she won't stand by her own convictions....which is why nobody stands by her.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...
> 
> View attachment 197223 View attachment 197224
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee Chris...you going to say something to him about posting pictures that don't tell the whole story?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he is right in that CA is having a problem with homelessness.  He is posting pictures of areas where homelessness is a problem.  You, OTOH, are denying that there is a problem because . . . some strange reason.  You don't want to admit that some of your leftist economic policies are not conducive to a productive society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said any such thing.
> 
> As for a "productive society", California's GDP 5th in the world.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


I've never seen anything like this.  It's shocking.  If you keep going this way, it is only a matter of time before you are overrun with homeless people.  The problem will spread if you keep denying that you have a problem and instead of being an adult and confronting it, burying your head in the sand and denying it.  If this was my state, I would be embarrassed.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Bixby Bridge...
> View attachment 197227
> Pure Majesty.
> 
> Mt. Shasta
> View attachment 197229


Sweetie...progressives didn’t create the land. God did. And *nobody* denies God’s work is jaw-dropping. But here is what progressives have created in California:





Graffiti. Garbage. Crime. Homelessness. Unemployment. Debt.


----------



## ChrisL

P@triot said:


> Here is California. This is the progressive idea of the “American Dream”
> 
> View attachment 197228



Awful.  Filthy looking.  Looks like a ghetto.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

HereWeGoAgain said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> What does that even mean, fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> US unemployment hits an 18-year low despite trade concerns
> 
> I know you're a shameless liar, but what the fuck are you babbling about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.
> 
> Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.
> 
> You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am highly doubtful that anyone who is fabulously wealthy would be here at USMB posting amongst the riff raff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain says he lives off of dividend income...which is usually about 15 cents to  a dollar fifty per quarter per share.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how it works skippy.....take note.
> I retired 6 years ago at 46 because my dividends allowed it.
> I bring in around 30k a year while doing nothing.
> The wife will work for another 4 or 5 years bringing in around 170k a year plus a 30 or 40k bonus yearly.
> Once her stocks mature we will have an income of 150k a year even if we dont collect SS,and that doesnt even include our individual 401k's.
> It's called hard work and planning,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rare moment of honesty from Chris
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No ...It's actually only part of our income.
Click to expand...


  What are you laughing at douche nozzle?
I clearly stated that was only part of our retirement income.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> I'm sure Chris will be here to argue with you.  Oh wait, she won't stand by her own convictions....which is why nobody stands by her.


Uh...I _firmly_ stand by her. Always have. Always will.


----------



## P@triot

ChrisL said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is California. This is the progressive idea of the “American Dream”
> 
> View attachment 197228
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awful.  Filthy looking.  Looks like a ghetto.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that’s what progressive policy creates. Look at Venezuela now. Once a beautiful nation, now a third-world shit-hole. Such an unnecessary tragedy.


----------



## ChrisL

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bixby Bridge...
> View attachment 197227
> Pure Majesty.
> 
> Mt. Shasta
> View attachment 197229
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie...progressives didn’t create the land. God did. And *nobody* denies God’s work is jaw-dropping. But here is what progressives have created in California:
> 
> View attachment 197232
> 
> Graffiti. Garbage. Crime. Homelessness. Unemployment. Debt.
Click to expand...


Looks like Rio De Janeiro.


candycorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I write "fraud?"
> 
> Here's fraud...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we have more jobs, 7 million Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet. Twenty percent of working Americans make less than $20k per year. That's pretty sad.
> 
> When are you going to pull your head out of Putin's ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Like all Communist trolls, you lie that you  are FABULOUSLY WEALTHY.
> 
> Despite your ridiculous lies, you then go on to further lie that Trump is keeping people poor, despite this being the best economy in half a century.
> 
> You're a liar, a fool. and a complete fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am highly doubtful that anyone who is fabulously wealthy would be here at USMB posting amongst the riff raff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain says he lives off of dividend income...which is usually about 15 cents to  a dollar fifty per quarter per share.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how it works skippy.....take note.
> I retired 6 years ago at 46 because my dividends allowed it.
> I bring in around 30k a year while doing nothing.
> The wife will work for another 4 or 5 years bringing in around 170k a year plus a 30 or 40k bonus yearly.
> Once her stocks mature we will have an income of 150k a year even if we dont collect SS,and that doesnt even include our individual 401k's.
> It's called hard work and planning,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rare moment of honesty from Chris
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No ...It's actually only part of our income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Chris will be here to argue with you.  Oh wait, she won't stand by her own convictions....which is why nobody stands by her.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot.  Lol.  California has a homelessness problem, and a serious one at that.


----------



## P@triot

ChrisL said:


> California has a homelessness problem, and a serious one at that.


Progressives always believe they can simply deny their way out of reality. So bizarre.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> Bixby Bridge...
> View attachment 197227
> Pure Majesty.
> 
> Mt. Shasta
> View attachment 197229
> 
> Incredible...
> 
> However, I did wonder why at Gladstones in Malibu and Javiers in Newport never seem to have an opening on Friday or Saturday night.  Obviously, it's the illegal aliens; they seem to have an elevated pallet and thirst for pistachio encrusted tuna or lobster enchiladas.
> 
> View attachment 197230
> 
> A-holes.



As California's homelessness grows, the crisis emerges as a major issue in state's gubernatorial race

*As California's homelessness grows, the crisis emerges as a major issue in state's gubernatorial race*

With about one quarter of the nation's homeless population in California, the problem has emerged as major issue in this year's governor's race.
The candidates are offering different approaches to the homelessness, including one who wants to force people on streets into state-run institutions.
Most of the candidates agree that the state's chronic shortage of affordable housing is contributing to the increasing homeless population.


----------



## ChrisL

P@triot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> California has a homelessness problem, and a serious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives always believe they can simply deny their way out of reality. So bizarre.
Click to expand...


It is REALLY bizarre.  Something is seriously wrong with them.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...disgusting. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> We know we’re right. We always are. Look at the filth and garbage everywhere...
> 
> View attachment 197223 View attachment 197224
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee Chris...you going to say something to him about posting pictures that don't tell the whole story?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he is right in that CA is having a problem with homelessness.  He is posting pictures of areas where homelessness is a problem.  You, OTOH, are denying that there is a problem because . . . some strange reason.  You don't want to admit that some of your leftist economic policies are not conducive to a productive society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said any such thing.
> 
> As for a "productive society", California's GDP 5th in the world.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...



Wow, you have no clue as to what goes into a GDP calculation, you may want to look it up.


----------



## ChrisL

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Chris will be here to argue with you.  Oh wait, she won't stand by her own convictions....which is why nobody stands by her.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...I _firmly_ stand by her. Always have. Always will.
Click to expand...


Well thank you.  That is so nice.


----------



## Thinker101

ChrisL said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> California has a homelessness problem, and a serious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives always believe they can simply deny their way out of reality. So bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is REALLY bizarre.  Something is seriously wrong with them.
Click to expand...


Must have worked out well for them when they were 6.


----------



## ChrisL

You will lose supporters if there is a problem that is bothersome to the voting citizens who pay taxes and you ignore it and pretend as if it doesn't exist, instead crying out "racism", "sexism", "bigotry", "abortion", "I'm with her!"    Lol.


----------



## Loving91390

You liberals ... Just don't get it ! 
These homeless people have been offered free housing ... And they won't take it !

Stop with your whining !  They dont want help ! 

They are happy on the streets ....


----------



## ChrisL

Well, whenever we get new "refugees" from war torn countries, we can just send them to good old Cali.  They got this all under control.    Hell, we'll send them all of our homeless people too so that they can be taken care of real good in California.


----------



## candycorn

Loving91390 said:


> You liberals ... Just don't get it !
> These homeless people have been offered free housing ... And they won't take it !
> 
> Stop with your whining !  They dont want help !
> 
> They are happy on the streets ....



You're right about many if not most of them anyway.  They don't want to comply by the rules of the shelters so they prefer to go it alone.  California is so beautiful, I can see why.


----------



## candycorn

San Francisco


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234



Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234



SF tourist industry struggles to explain street misery to horrified visitors

As president of the Handlery Union Square Hotel, part of Jon Handlery’s job is to scour travel websites to find out what tourists are telling one another about his hotel and San Francisco.

He tries to respond, thanking his customers for their patronage and acknowledging their gripes. But he’s stopped even trying to explain the No. 1 complaint: the city’s miserable street scene that’s made all the more stark against the backdrop of so much wealth and luxury.

Tiffany’s and tents. Neiman Marcus and needles. Macy’s and mental illness.

This month, for example, Handlery noticed a review on TripAdvisor that praised the hotel’s location, its pool, its proximity to the cable cars and the easy walk to the Ferry Building. But it ended with a jolt.

“Seeing homeless men in wheelchairs without shoes in the winter, women with infants on the streets, young men and women on the streets doing drugs, it was painful,” wrote the commenter.

Handlery used to assure his visitors the city was doing all it could to combat rampant homelessness, but he no longer makes those claims.

“I am sorry about the street scene,” Handlery responded to the commenter. “But unfortunately our city has failed to address the issue.”


----------



## ChrisL

Pretty darn depressing.


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.
Click to expand...


Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.  

California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.

I'd take California any day.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.
> 
> California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
> Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.
> 
> I'd take California any day.
Click to expand...


Your "images" are postcards, fool.


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SF tourist industry struggles to explain street misery to horrified visitors
> 
> As president of the Handlery Union Square Hotel, part of Jon Handlery’s job is to scour travel websites to find out what tourists are telling one another about his hotel and San Francisco.
> 
> He tries to respond, thanking his customers for their patronage and acknowledging their gripes. But he’s stopped even trying to explain the No. 1 complaint: the city’s miserable street scene that’s made all the more stark against the backdrop of so much wealth and luxury.
> 
> Tiffany’s and tents. Neiman Marcus and needles. Macy’s and mental illness.
> 
> This month, for example, Handlery noticed a review on TripAdvisor that praised the hotel’s location, its pool, its proximity to the cable cars and the easy walk to the Ferry Building. But it ended with a jolt.
> 
> “Seeing homeless men in wheelchairs without shoes in the winter, women with infants on the streets, young men and women on the streets doing drugs, it was painful,” wrote the commenter.
> 
> Handlery used to assure his visitors the city was doing all it could to combat rampant homelessness, but he no longer makes those claims.
> 
> “I am sorry about the street scene,” Handlery responded to the commenter. “But unfortunately our city has failed to address the issue.”
Click to expand...


Great...maybe I can get a room at the Argonaut when I visit this Winter.  Thanks for the update.  

Or maybe not:

San Francisco Travel Reports Record-Breaking Year for Tourism


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.
> 
> California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
> Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.
> 
> I'd take California any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
Click to expand...


Your image is ugly.


----------



## Issa

I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
And why millions of people move here? 
And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
Why you eat its food?
Why you watch its entertentsinment?


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.
> 
> California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
> Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.
> 
> I'd take California any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
Click to expand...


You're ugly.  Your image would break the website, which explains why you use images of other women and not your own.


----------



## ChrisL

Issa said:


> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?



Who hates them?  Acknowledging that there is a homeless problem doesn't mean that you hate them.  It's rather sad that their cities don't do more for their homeless people.


----------



## ChrisL

Seeing all the videos of the tents pitched on the sides of roads shows a pretty damn sad state of affairs.  Where does all of that tax money go?  Why do they want to provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants when they obviously cannot handle their own homeless population?  Something is not right there, and the people who live there should be concerned.  Oh well though. If you choose to remain ignorant, so be it.  I don't live there.  Not my problem.  Enjoy.


----------



## saveliberty

Issa said:


> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?



Bay Area exodus? Nearly 50 percent of Californians say they want to move out soon, poll finds


----------



## ChrisL

I do personally know someone who lives in CA and who was homeless for a time and could not get any help and was living out of a car/van/whatever.  This is a person who has lived there for a long time and is a person over 60, I believe, so an older person too.  WTH is going on there?


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.
> 
> California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
> Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.
> 
> I'd take California any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ugly.  Your image would break the website, which explains why you use images of other women and not your own.
Click to expand...


That makes me smart...


----------



## candycorn

saveliberty said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bay Area exodus? Nearly 50 percent of Californians say they want to move out soon, poll finds
Click to expand...


Yeah...okay.


----------



## candycorn

Issa said:


> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?



They can't stand people being happy.  Miserable people want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.  So they bring the hate, calling people "fool", etc...


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stand people being happy.  Miserable people want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.  So they bring the hate, calling people "fool", etc...
Click to expand...


Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.
> 
> California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
> Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.
> 
> I'd take California any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ugly.  Your image would break the website, which explains why you use images of other women and not your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes me smart...
Click to expand...


Looking in the mirror?  I'm sure it does.


----------



## ChrisL

Turds and tents in the streets?  Nothing to see here folks.  Look over there, Russians!


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> California is beautiful.


Like all progressives, you fail to understand the discussion. We get that there is land in California that is “beautiful” (just as there is in Alabama). But idiotic, *failed* left-wing policy has turned that state into a shit-hole.

It has the highest unemployment in the U.S., the lowest quality of life, and rampant homelessness.


----------



## Moonglow

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is beautiful.
> 
> 
> 
> Like all progressives, you fail to understand the discussion. We get that there is land in California that is “beautiful” (just as there is in Alabama). But idiotic, *failed* left-wing policy has turned that state into a shit-hole.
> 
> It has the highest unemployment in the U.S., the lowest quality of life, and rampant homelessness.
Click to expand...

Do you live there, have you ever lived there, ever visited?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?


I’m not the least bit “concerned” about it. I do, however, love to use it as a teaching tool. It’s the perfect illustration of what left-wing policy does (collapses everything it touches).

Incidentally - why is it you left-wing constitutional *haters* don’t have that same anti-federalist view when it comes to all laws and regulations across the U.S.?!? Funny how you have a “none of your business” view when it comes to your beloved shit-hole state of California, but have the extreme fascist view of “all states will force citizens to carry health insurance”. You’ve exposed yourself as a partisan hack and a hypocrite.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> And why millions of people move here?


You must be a product of progressive public schools. Not only is your grammar absolutely _atrocious_, but you’re incapable of honesty as well. Millions don’t “move” to California. Millions *flee* California.

Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes are fleeing state in big numbers

If California’s the future, why are so many leaving?

Californians Doing The Once-Unthinkable: Leaving California | Investor's Business Daily


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...

California College Spikes National Anthem From Graduation Ceremony


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?


Why you speak like Chinese two-ist twying to get diwekshun to gwo-shee stow?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> I'd take California any day.


Well sweetie, you can have it. These are “Great Depression” era numbers:


> California's Democratic leaders claim to be the champions of the poor, and yet California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, when California's stratospheric cost-of-living, housing and taxes are accounted for, *the poverty rate is a shocking 20.6%*.


Only idiotic left-wing policy could take a state with unimaginable natural resources and turn it into a catastrophic 20.6% poverty rate.

Democratic disaster: 7 progressive policies that are driving the California mass exodus


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> Turds and tents in the streets?  Nothing to see here folks.  Look over there, Russians!



You have it mixed up with Houston....


----------



## candycorn

Man, women in bikinis, endless beautiful scenery (paid for by state and local taxes), picture post card views, one of a kind attractions, 

No wonder you miserable slobs hate it so much.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turds and tents in the streets?  Nothing to see here folks.  Look over there, Russians!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it mixed up with Houston....
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! You just pointed out _another_ city controlled by progressives. Houston is in Harris County, my dear.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> No wonder you miserable slobs hate it so much.


Well sweetie, rational people hate 20% poverty and unimaginable crime.


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> Man, women in bikinis, endless beautiful scenery (paid for by state and local taxes), picture post card views, one of a kind attractions,
> 
> No wonder you miserable slobs hate it so much.




Yea we know you like men in bikinis..


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder you miserable slobs hate it so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sweetie, rational people hate 20% poverty and unimaginable crime.
Click to expand...


Again, you have it confused with Houston.  In Brick red Texas.  You'd think after 30 years wall to wall GOP rule, that Texas would be somehow better.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take California any day.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sweetie, you can have it. These are “Great Depression” era numbers:
> 
> 
> 
> California's Democratic leaders claim to be the champions of the poor, and yet California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, when California's stratospheric cost-of-living, housing and taxes are accounted for, *the poverty rate is a shocking 20.6%*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only idiotic left-wing policy could take a state with unimaginable natural resources and turn it into a catastrophic 20.6% poverty rate.
> 
> Democratic disaster: 7 progressive policies that are driving the California mass exodus
Click to expand...


Well the 45 million people who live out there or whatever it is speaks much more loudly than your pathetic little words.  

Go back to possum holler....


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.
> 
> California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
> Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.
> 
> I'd take California any day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ugly.  Your image would break the website, which explains why you use images of other women and not your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes me smart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking in the mirror?  I'm sure it does.
Click to expand...


When I look in the mirror, I do see someone who is smart.
When you look in the mirror, it breaks (on the off chance you can find one large enough)


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Again, you have it confused with Houston.


Again sweetie...Houston is smack dab in the middle of progressive country


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ugly.  Your image would break the website, which explains why you use images of other women and not your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes me smart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking in the mirror?  I'm sure it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I look in the mirror, I do see someone who is smart.
> When you look in the mirror, it breaks (on the off chance you can find one large enough)
Click to expand...


No kidding, is your mom standing next to you?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> When you look in the mirror, it breaks (on the off chance you can find one large enough)


“Large enough”? What are you talking about? CL is *thin*. Very thin.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Well the 45 million people who live out there or whatever it is speaks much more loudly than your pathetic little words.


You don’t have to listen to my words. All you have to do is look at the *facts*.

20.6% poverty rate (highest in the U.S.)

Rampant homelessness 

Lowest quality of life


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're ugly.  Your image would break the website, which explains why you use images of other women and not your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes me smart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking in the mirror?  I'm sure it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I look in the mirror, I do see someone who is smart.
> When you look in the mirror, it breaks (on the off chance you can find one large enough)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding, is your mom standing next to you?
Click to expand...


Nice one...

I liked the joke, really did. 
But you really shouldn't mention other poster's parents, kids, siblings, etc...  I think it's against the rules.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> But you really shouldn't mention other poster's parents, kids, siblings, etc...  I think it's against the rules.


Not in that context, it’s not. He did not insult your mom in _any_ capacity. In fact, quite the contrary, he literally called her “smart” in a sincere way.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the 45 million people who live out there or whatever it is speaks much more loudly than your pathetic little words.
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to listen to my words. All you have to do is look at the *facts*.
> 
> 20.6% poverty rate (highest in the U.S.)
> 
> Rampant homelessness
> 
> Lowest quality of life
Click to expand...


45M people live there. Its not because the quality of the life is poor dumbass.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 45M people live there. Its not because the quality of the life is poor dumbass.


Wow you are angry. Even talking simple facts gets you all riled up. Again, 20 million of those are illegal aliens who have invaded our nation.

Also - progressives reproduce like rabbits out of wedlock. The number of people doesn’t change the fact that it has the lowest quality of life of all 50 states in the U.S.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 45M people live there. Its not because the quality of the life is poor dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you are angry. Even talking simple facts gets you all riled up. Again, 20 million of those are illegal aliens who have invaded our nation.
> 
> Also - progressives reproduce like rabbits out of wedlock. The number of people doesn’t change the fact that it has the lowest quality of life of all 50 states in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Calling you a dumbass is a fact; not a sign that you have riled anyone up.


----------



## AntonToo

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 45M people live there. Its not because the quality of the life is poor dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you are angry. Even talking simple facts gets you all riled up. Again, 20 million of those are illegal aliens who have invaded our nation.
> 
> Also - progressives reproduce like rabbits out of wedlock. The number of people doesn’t change the fact that it has the lowest quality of life of all 50 states in the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling you a dumbass is a fact; not a sign that you have riled anyone up.
Click to expand...


It's true, P@triot is a dumbass, look no further than his "20 million in California are illegal aliens" comment.

You HAVE TO be a dumbass to say something so detached from reality and he says blatantly counterfactual nonsence like this every other post.


----------



## candycorn

antontoo said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 45M people live there. Its not because the quality of the life is poor dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you are angry. Even talking simple facts gets you all riled up. Again, 20 million of those are illegal aliens who have invaded our nation.
> 
> Also - progressives reproduce like rabbits out of wedlock. The number of people doesn’t change the fact that it has the lowest quality of life of all 50 states in the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling you a dumbass is a fact; not a sign that you have riled anyone up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true, P@triot is a dumbass, look no further than his "20 million in California are illegal aliens" comment.
> 
> You HAVE TO be a dumbass to say something so detached from reality and he says blatantly counterfactual nonsence like this every other post.
Click to expand...


It's just sad.  The incessant, blatant lies from the right.  He knows that its false, ChrisL knows he's full of shit, so does spider boy (I don't remember his screen name).  But hey, if you agree on one point, you have to back up or remain silent about all of the other crap they spew?  Really?  I had a conversation yesterday with a guy who swears that only Mexicans litter.  I used to wonder if Trump supporters would ever hit bottom.  I now wonder if there is a bottom.


----------



## Issa

ChrisL said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who hates them?  Acknowledging that there is a homeless problem doesn't mean that you hate them.  It's rather sad that their cities don't do more for their homeless people.
Click to expand...

Cities do a lot infact homeless move from other parts of the US to come here to get help and for the nice weather as well. 
I can go right now and ask 100 homeless in west LA and I'll prove to you that most are not from here. They come here for the help. 
If you worry about them come down here and help them.


----------



## Issa

saveliberty said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bay Area exodus? Nearly 50 percent of Californians say they want to move out soon, poll finds
Click to expand...

When that happens let me know.


----------



## Issa

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stand people being happy.  Miserable people want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.  So they bring the hate, calling people "fool", etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.
Click to expand...

Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not the least bit “concerned” about it. I do, however, love to use it as a teaching tool. It’s the perfect illustration of what left-wing policy does (collapses everything it touches).
> 
> Incidentally - why is it you left-wing constitutional *haters* don’t have that same anti-federalist view when it comes to all laws and regulations across the U.S.?!? Funny how you have a “none of your business” view when it comes to your beloved shit-hole state of California, but have the extreme fascist view of “all states will force citizens to carry health insurance”. You’ve exposed yourself as a partisan hack and a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I'm not leftist btw.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why millions of people move here?
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a product of progressive public schools. Not only is your grammar absolutely _atrocious_, but you’re incapable of honesty as well. Millions don’t “move” to California. Millions *flee* California.
> 
> Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes are fleeing state in big numbers
> 
> If California’s the future, why are so many leaving?
> 
> Californians Doing The Once-Unthinkable: Leaving California | Investor's Business Daily
Click to expand...

I didn't grow up here, and no California is jammed and full and I dont see nobody leaving. And if one does two more come to replace him.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> Why you speak like Chinese two-ist twying to get diwekshun to gwo-shee stow?
Click to expand...

C'est comme ca joto, أتعجب لغبائك pobrisito bambino.


----------



## candycorn

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why millions of people move here?
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a product of progressive public schools. Not only is your grammar absolutely _atrocious_, but you’re incapable of honesty as well. Millions don’t “move” to California. Millions *flee* California.
> 
> Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes are fleeing state in big numbers
> 
> If California’s the future, why are so many leaving?
> 
> Californians Doing The Once-Unthinkable: Leaving California | Investor's Business Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't grow up here, and no California is jammed and full and I dont see nobody leaving. And if one does two more come to replace him.
Click to expand...


Every flight I have there is almost full...every flight I take home has space.


----------



## Issa

candycorn said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why millions of people move here?
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a product of progressive public schools. Not only is your grammar absolutely _atrocious_, but you’re incapable of honesty as well. Millions don’t “move” to California. Millions *flee* California.
> 
> Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes are fleeing state in big numbers
> 
> If California’s the future, why are so many leaving?
> 
> Californians Doing The Once-Unthinkable: Leaving California | Investor's Business Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't grow up here, and no California is jammed and full and I dont see nobody leaving. And if one does two more come to replace him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every flight I have there is almost full...every flight I take home has space.
Click to expand...

Freeway, streets, restaurants, businesses, beaches, parks, are packed ....and these fools are telling otherwise....the orange slaves are delusional.


----------



## denmark

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States.


This post is so ridiculous and biased that people from Denmark can easily tell that. Why so extreme?


----------



## candycorn

denmark said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> This post is so ridiculous and biased that people from Denmark can easily tell that. Why so extreme?
Click to expand...


I missed that nugget of crap.  

Whenever you visit LA, the first thing that usually strikes you is how many Asians and Europeans are in line in front of you at the Getty, Rodeo Drive, Griffith, Disney, Lego Land, etc...  We were over in Westwood  by UCLA the last time I ventured over there and--swear to God--there was an Asian Chik-fil-A cashier speaking their native tongue Asian customer.


----------



## denmark

candycorn said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> This post is so ridiculous and biased that people from Denmark can easily tell that. Why so extreme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed that nugget of crap.
> 
> Whenever you visit LA, the first thing that usually strikes you is how many Asians and Europeans are in line in front of you at the Getty, Rodeo Drive, Griffith, Disney, Lego Land, etc...  We were over in Westwood  by UCLA the last time I ventured over there and--swear to God--there was an Asian Chik-fil-A cashier speaking their native tongue Asian customer.
Click to expand...

The tourist dollars are beneficial, as is the cheap auslander labor, no?


----------



## candycorn

denmark said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> This post is so ridiculous and biased that people from Denmark can easily tell that. Why so extreme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed that nugget of crap.
> 
> Whenever you visit LA, the first thing that usually strikes you is how many Asians and Europeans are in line in front of you at the Getty, Rodeo Drive, Griffith, Disney, Lego Land, etc...  We were over in Westwood  by UCLA the last time I ventured over there and--swear to God--there was an Asian Chik-fil-A cashier speaking their native tongue Asian customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tourist dollars are beneficial, as is the cheap auslander labor, no?
Click to expand...


Definitely!  

I was just pointing out how brazenly stupid the statement about California being an embarrassment is by highlighting the different cultures who are there.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ugly.  Your image would break the website, which explains why you use images of other women and not your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes me smart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking in the mirror?  I'm sure it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I look in the mirror, I do see someone who is smart.
> When you look in the mirror, it breaks (on the off chance you can find one large enough)
Click to expand...


Stop projecting, will ya?  I am tiny and adorable.   

Me.  




 

Candycorn . . .


----------



## ChrisL

Issa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stand people being happy.  Miserable people want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.  So they bring the hate, calling people "fool", etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?
Click to expand...


Why do you want to pretend as if there are no problems with homelessness in California?  People don't like it when problems are ignored and/or denied to even exist.  The fact here is that California has a big problem with homelessness and it is starting to invade the "wealthy" areas of the state too.  You can continue to ignore it, or you can demand that your state do something to solve the problem.  I live on the opposite coast, so it has no effect on me personally, so if you think homelessness is not a problem, then whatevs.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 45M people live there. Its not because the quality of the life is poor dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you are angry. Even talking simple facts gets you all riled up. Again, 20 million of those are illegal aliens who have invaded our nation.
> 
> Also - progressives reproduce like rabbits out of wedlock. The number of people doesn’t change the fact that it has the lowest quality of life of all 50 states in the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling you a dumbass is a fact; not a sign that you have riled anyone up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true, P@triot is a dumbass, look no further than his "20 million in California are illegal aliens" comment.
> 
> You HAVE TO be a dumbass to say something so detached from reality and he says blatantly counterfactual nonsence like this every other post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just sad.  The incessant, blatant lies from the right.  He knows that its false, ChrisL knows he's full of shit, so does spider boy (I don't remember his screen name).  But hey, if you agree on one point, you have to back up or remain silent about all of the other crap they spew?  Really?  I had a conversation yesterday with a guy who swears that only Mexicans litter.  I used to wonder if Trump supporters would ever hit bottom.  I now wonder if there is a bottom.
Click to expand...


What exactly are you claiming is false?  Please be specific.  

After all of the links that have been provided to you, you are still going to insist that there is no homelessness problem in California?  

californias problems with homelessness - Google Search


----------



## denmark

ChrisL said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stand people being happy.  Miserable people want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.  So they bring the hate, calling people "fool", etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to pretend as if there are no problems with homelessness in California?  People don't like it when problems are ignored and/or denied to even exist.  The fact here is that California has a big problem with homelessness and it is starting to invade the "wealthy" areas of the state too.  You can continue to ignore it, or you can demand that your state do something to solve the problem.  I live on the opposite coast, so it has no effect on me personally, so if you think homelessness is not a problem, then whatevs.
Click to expand...

Do many homeless people go to California from other states?  If so, maybe it is more liberal in their attitude toward the unfortunate and hobbo types. 
What is solution?  Ship them back where they came from?  Would that be legal?


----------



## ChrisL

denmark said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stand people being happy.  Miserable people want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.  So they bring the hate, calling people "fool", etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to pretend as if there are no problems with homelessness in California?  People don't like it when problems are ignored and/or denied to even exist.  The fact here is that California has a big problem with homelessness and it is starting to invade the "wealthy" areas of the state too.  You can continue to ignore it, or you can demand that your state do something to solve the problem.  I live on the opposite coast, so it has no effect on me personally, so if you think homelessness is not a problem, then whatevs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do many homeless people go to California from other states?  If so, maybe it is more liberal in their attitude toward the unfortunate and hobbo types.
> What is solution?  Ship them back where they came from?  Would that be legal?
Click to expand...


I don't know.  If I knew the solution for homelessness, I would probably be a very rich lady.    I just find it strange that SOME people would rather pretend a problem doesn't exist instead of acknowledging it and attacking it.  That is nothing but blatantly ignorant.


----------



## ChrisL

I'm here posting genuine articles and statistics about CA's homelessness problems, and articles about how the residents and the business owners and the politicians are all concerned about the problem, yet the liberals here on USMB deny that there is a problem at all and continue to tell personal anecdotes and post pictures of postcards.


----------



## Seawytch

Issa said:


> I just have one question for all the haters....if you hate California policies/people/life style why you so concerned about it every day?
> And why millions of people move here?
> And why most every new thing comes from here and you happy to use it?
> Why you eat its food?
> Why you watch its entertentsinment?



It's jealousy obviously. Every state has homelessness, graffiti, drug abuse, prostitution, etc. Places where the weather is nice or there are more people attracts more homelessness. In California, a lot has to do with the cost of housing. That's hardly a result of "liberal" policy.


----------



## Seawytch

ChrisL said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't stand people being happy.  Miserable people want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.  So they bring the hate, calling people "fool", etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to pretend as if there are no problems with homelessness in California?  People don't like it when problems are ignored and/or denied to even exist.  The fact here is that California has a big problem with homelessness and it is starting to invade the "wealthy" areas of the state too.  You can continue to ignore it, or you can demand that your state do something to solve the problem.  I live on the opposite coast, so it has no effect on me personally, so if you think homelessness is not a problem, then whatevs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do many homeless people go to California from other states?  If so, maybe it is more liberal in their attitude toward the unfortunate and hobbo types.
> What is solution?  Ship them back where they came from?  Would that be legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  If I knew the solution for homelessness, I would probably be a very rich lady.    I just find it strange that SOME people would rather pretend a problem doesn't exist instead of acknowledging it and attacking it.  That is nothing but blatantly ignorant.
Click to expand...


Nobody is saying it doesn't exist. It exists *everywhere*. It's not a liberal or conservative or red state blue state problem, it's a human problem. It's an American problem with few good solutions that anyone is willing to pay for. It requires mental health spending, spending on shelter and, low cost housing. It requires rent control and drug treatment  programs. It exists. Now what do we DO about it?


----------



## ChrisL

Seawytch said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to pretend as if there are no problems with homelessness in California?  People don't like it when problems are ignored and/or denied to even exist.  The fact here is that California has a big problem with homelessness and it is starting to invade the "wealthy" areas of the state too.  You can continue to ignore it, or you can demand that your state do something to solve the problem.  I live on the opposite coast, so it has no effect on me personally, so if you think homelessness is not a problem, then whatevs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do many homeless people go to California from other states?  If so, maybe it is more liberal in their attitude toward the unfortunate and hobbo types.
> What is solution?  Ship them back where they came from?  Would that be legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  If I knew the solution for homelessness, I would probably be a very rich lady.    I just find it strange that SOME people would rather pretend a problem doesn't exist instead of acknowledging it and attacking it.  That is nothing but blatantly ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying it doesn't exist. It exists *everywhere*. It's not a liberal or conservative or red state blue state problem, it's a human problem. It's an American problem with few good solutions that anyone is willing to pay for. It requires mental health spending, spending on shelter and, low cost housing. It requires rent control and drug treatment  programs. It exists. Now what do we DO about it?
Click to expand...


The homeless rate in California has grown immensely in just the last year.  

California Today: State’s Homeless Population Drives National Increase

It could hardly come as a surprise to anyone who travels around the state: the number of people who are homeless in California continues to rise at a steady clip. Every year, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development releases a Point in Time count of the homeless population. This year that number reached nearly 554,000 — a 1 percent increase from last year, driven by the dramatic surge in West Coast cities.

More than one-quarter of the total homeless population nationwide lives in California, roughly 114,000. The vast majority are “unsheltered” — a more bureaucratic term to describe the thousands living on the streets, under freeways and tucked into grassy fields and parks in cities all around the state.

“It’s certainly a bigger increase than we would have expected,” said Ben Metcalf, the director of the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development. “There’s a tale of different countries here: We’re seeing a real significant increase and much of the rest of the country is not. We’re all doing the same things, but here the rent is too damn high. We’ve seen an incredible increase in the cost of housing.”


----------



## Seawytch

ChrisL said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to pretend as if there are no problems with homelessness in California?  People don't like it when problems are ignored and/or denied to even exist.  The fact here is that California has a big problem with homelessness and it is starting to invade the "wealthy" areas of the state too.  You can continue to ignore it, or you can demand that your state do something to solve the problem.  I live on the opposite coast, so it has no effect on me personally, so if you think homelessness is not a problem, then whatevs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do many homeless people go to California from other states?  If so, maybe it is more liberal in their attitude toward the unfortunate and hobbo types.
> What is solution?  Ship them back where they came from?  Would that be legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  If I knew the solution for homelessness, I would probably be a very rich lady.    I just find it strange that SOME people would rather pretend a problem doesn't exist instead of acknowledging it and attacking it.  That is nothing but blatantly ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying it doesn't exist. It exists *everywhere*. It's not a liberal or conservative or red state blue state problem, it's a human problem. It's an American problem with few good solutions that anyone is willing to pay for. It requires mental health spending, spending on shelter and, low cost housing. It requires rent control and drug treatment  programs. It exists. Now what do we DO about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless rate in California has grown immensely in just the last year.
> 
> California Today: State’s Homeless Population Drives National Increase
> 
> It could hardly come as a surprise to anyone who travels around the state: the number of people who are homeless in California continues to rise at a steady clip. Every year, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development releases a Point in Time count of the homeless population. This year that number reached nearly 554,000 — a 1 percent increase from last year, driven by the dramatic surge in West Coast cities.
> 
> More than one-quarter of the total homeless population nationwide lives in California, roughly 114,000. The vast majority are “unsheltered” — a more bureaucratic term to describe the thousands living on the streets, under freeways and tucked into grassy fields and parks in cities all around the state.
> 
> “It’s certainly a bigger increase than we would have expected,” said Ben Metcalf, the director of the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development. “There’s a tale of different countries here: We’re seeing a real significant increase and much of the rest of the country is not. We’re all doing the same things, but here the rent is too damn high. We’ve seen an incredible increase in the cost of housing.”
Click to expand...


Yes, and? That doesn't erase homelessness elsewhere does it? It doesn't decrease it elsewhere, does it? It may be a hairy mole on the buttock of California but it's just a butt cheek. The state has a vibrant, booming,  economy which is huge part of the housing problem. 

It's still one of the most desirable places on the planet to live. I'm 4th Generation Californian and living in paradise. I breath fresh air and drink clean water. 

We all recognize that homelessness is a problem, some of us just know it's not a California problem, but a worldwide one and more microtargeted, an American one. As one of the richest nations on earth, this is one we should be able to tackle. Let's build a few less bombs and lots more affordable housing. There's lots of room in Wyoming I hear...


----------



## eagle1462010

Oh GOD.............Liberals ranting on How Great they are in California.........ignoring they are leaving in droves there and have the worst homeless problem in the Nation......while taking on the largest number of illegals in the Nation.

Have another thread on this subject..........didn't see this one.

The Homeless people of California


----------



## candycorn

Seawytch said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Mr. T pities the fool, doesn't mean we all have to.    Lol!  Obviously there is a problem there, and you don't want to acknowledge.  Typical leftist.  Like I said, it's pretty sad but if you guys are okay with it, then I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont worry about California giving the federal government more than it takes ? Or when California GDP is getting and bigger than lot of wealthy countries ? Or when we export technology that helps you and millions around the world ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to pretend as if there are no problems with homelessness in California?  People don't like it when problems are ignored and/or denied to even exist.  The fact here is that California has a big problem with homelessness and it is starting to invade the "wealthy" areas of the state too.  You can continue to ignore it, or you can demand that your state do something to solve the problem.  I live on the opposite coast, so it has no effect on me personally, so if you think homelessness is not a problem, then whatevs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do many homeless people go to California from other states?  If so, maybe it is more liberal in their attitude toward the unfortunate and hobbo types.
> What is solution?  Ship them back where they came from?  Would that be legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  If I knew the solution for homelessness, I would probably be a very rich lady.    I just find it strange that SOME people would rather pretend a problem doesn't exist instead of acknowledging it and attacking it.  That is nothing but blatantly ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying it doesn't exist. It exists *everywhere*. It's not a liberal or conservative or red state blue state problem, it's a human problem. It's an American problem with few good solutions that anyone is willing to pay for. It requires mental health spending, spending on shelter and, low cost housing. It requires rent control and drug treatment  programs. It exists. Now what do we DO about it?
Click to expand...


The governors of 30+ states are Republicans.  They seem to have absolutely no responsibility for anything that happens in those states they govern.  Texas has been a subsidiary of the GOP for about 30 years….never has a Texas Governor—Clemets, Bush, Perry, Abbott—done one thing about the homeless.


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234



San Francisco


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco
> 
> View attachment 197234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your touristy images are really making an impression on us, especially after we've seen the pictures of the "hidden" San Francisco.  Kind of like any other "trendy resort" reserved for the rich and wealthy in any 3rd world country that has a nice beach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all of the images that I post are accessible by anyone.  So you make yet another false statement.  You can't help yourself.
> 
> California has problems.  California is beautiful.  That is why there is so many people out there.
> Alabama has problems.  Alabama is ugly.  That is why it is largely rural.
> 
> I'd take California any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "images" are postcards, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your image is ugly.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is ugly.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bay Area exodus? Nearly 50 percent of Californians say they want to move out soon, poll finds
> 
> 
> 
> When that happens let me know.
Click to expand...

Typical progressive. Ignore the problem and deny the problem until it is too late to actually do anything about the problem.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Freeway, streets, restaurants, businesses, beaches, parks, are packed.....


....with *illegal* aliens.


----------



## P@triot

denmark said:


> Do many homeless people go to California from other states?  If so, maybe it is more liberal in their attitude toward the unfortunate and hobbo types.


Yeah...that’s it denmark. Liberals are soooooo warn & welcoming towards people who are less fortunate. Keep going with that idiotic left-wing propaganda. 

California residents in affluent cities don’t want the homeless housed in their neighborhoods


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> It's just sad.  The incessant, blatant lies from the right.


Bwahaha! Even the hard core left-wing New York Times is acknowledging that it is so bad in California, the people of San Francisco are ready to turn to Republicans to bail them out (as the American people always do when left-wing leadership forces them to hit rock bottom).


> SAN FRANCISCO — In this deeply liberal California city, frustration over crises around housing and homelessness is bringing some on the left a little *further right*.


But hey...keep pretending there is no problem CC and keep claiming it is all “incessant, blatant lies from the right” (even when it’s from the New York Times)! 

Troubles in San Francisco Push Some Voters to Think Republican


----------



## JBond

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


California losers are the same pieces of shit that lost their minds when asked to pay their fair shair of federal taxes. The SALT changes brought out their true colors. Greed.


----------



## eagle1462010

JBond said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> California losers are the same pieces of shit that lost their minds when asked to pay their fair shair of federal taxes. The SALT changes brought out their true colors. Greed.
Click to expand...

They and New York have some of the highest property taxes in the Nation..........when those were removed from the Federal Tax Reductions they screamed fowl.................because they would have to pay more..............Yet they have forever demanded more taxes on the rich..........those living in inflated priced mansions can't write off the high taxes anymore..............and are pissed.............Hypocrisy at it's best.


----------



## eagle1462010

On the other thread on this issue I looked up house prices............in Cali........versus Alabama and then Texas.........and found that I could buy anywhere from 8 to 10 houses for the same price of a similar or even lesser house in California..............................

Their prices are INSANE..............why people are leaving in droves.............can't afford to live there.  Those unable to flee are pitching tents..................better than nothing at all................they still work but have no home........probably saving every cent to haul ass too.............


----------



## JBond

eagle1462010 said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> California losers are the same pieces of shit that lost their minds when asked to pay their fair shair of federal taxes. The SALT changes brought out their true colors. Greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and New York have some of the highest property taxes in the Nation..........when those were removed from the Federal Tax Reductions they screamed fowl.................because they would have to pay more..............Yet they have forever demanded more taxes on the rich..........those living in inflated priced mansions can't write off the high taxes anymore..............and are pissed.............Hypocrisy at it's best.
Click to expand...

I would love to audit the tax returns of every elected offical. You know they are cheating.  Back to liberal hypocrisy... They clamored for higher taxes and cried when they received what they demanded. Silly group of idiots.


----------



## eagle1462010

JBond said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> California losers are the same pieces of shit that lost their minds when asked to pay their fair shair of federal taxes. The SALT changes brought out their true colors. Greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They and New York have some of the highest property taxes in the Nation..........when those were removed from the Federal Tax Reductions they screamed fowl.................because they would have to pay more..............Yet they have forever demanded more taxes on the rich..........those living in inflated priced mansions can't write off the high taxes anymore..............and are pissed.............Hypocrisy at it's best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to audit the tax returns of every elected offical. You know they are cheating.  Back to liberal hypocrisy... They clamored for higher taxes and cried when they received what they demanded. Silly group of idiots.
Click to expand...

The issue of California homelessness and high prices screwing the poor gets the left unhinged........not that that is anything abnormal for them............LOL..........but when you point out how their policies screw the poor in their states they go off the reservation...........

They have screwed the people they say they are Champions of.............and put many on the streets and caused many to flee..........Millions to flee.............Just like Detroit were 1.5 million left the dang place after they destroyed it.  The only reason the population of California is stable is because illegals are flocking to the place.  Even with the high prices there the illegals get 20 people together and all rent one house...........LOL ..........hell they do it here in Alabama........I see It up the road from me........they have one house and one car...............they work at the nurseries.........

Anyways............they have inflated the prices so high that now they have changed the propaganda to LIVING WAGES........................because they have jacked up the cost for everything.  Stupidity in motion.


----------



## P@triot

Failed left-wing policy continues to drive companies, jobs, and people out of California. It is well on its way to becoming the next Venezuela (or Detroit - take your pick).


> Insane individual and corporate taxes: California's state tax is at 8.25%, income tax goes as high as 13.3%, and corporate taxes are at 8.84%. Out-of-control taxes and policies have driven countless companies out of California in the last two years, including Carl's Jr., Toyota, Nissan, Jamba Juice and Chevron.


It is unreal watching the left destroy economies, jobs, communities, nations and lives.

Democratic disaster: 7 progressive policies that are driving the California mass exodus


----------



## P@triot

You can _always _count on California to decrease prosperity and increase crime...


> Car burglaries, shoplifting, and other thefts have risen in California since voters passed a 2014 proposition that reduced penalties for certain nonviolent crimes.


Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.

California larceny rates jumped after voters passed measure to reduce penalties


----------



## P@triot

California continues to fail its citizens because of the idiot radical progressives.


> California is failing its citizens one by one: deteriorating quality of life, crumbling roads and bridges, an underperforming education system, ballooning pension obligations for government workers, political cronyism and unfriendly policies that are driving businesses out of state.


More and more, Californians are looking to conservative policies to bail them out of the nightmare.

This is why Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper wants to break California into three


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. The state isn’t even capable of providing clean, healthy drinking water to our veterans in a hospital.


> Legionella, the bacteria that can cause Legionnaire’s disease, was found in the water that supplies the water fountains at Pettis VA Medical Center in Loma Linda, California, according to recent water safety tests.


California is a complete and total embarrassment to the United States. Progressive policy has turned it into a third-world nation.

Legionella bacteria discovered in California VA hospital’s water fountains


----------



## P@triot

The failed and ignorant left-wing ideology has run California so far into the ground, breaking it up may be the only way to save it (and even then, the odds are greatly against them). But perhaps smaller sections can be saved by conservatism.

Bid to split California into 3 states gains traction – could it really happen?


----------



## P@triot

No surprise here. California is #2 in states with the most psychopaths. Also not a surprise - 8 of the top 10 states for psychopaths are the most radical left-wing states (California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, etc.).

Left-wing policy will produce psychopaths _every_ time. That's what happens when you reject God, eliminate liberty, promote promiscuity, embrace the murder of babies, support sexual deviance, break up the family structure, and facilitate poverty.

States with the Most Psychopaths - State Rankings for Most Psychopaths


----------



## P@triot

Show me a city with a strong progressive presence and leadership, and I will show a city that resembles a third-world country. From living conditions, to crime, to poverty, to dilapidation of facilities - nothing regresses the human condition like *failed* left-wing policy.

'20 pounds of human waste' dropped on San Francisco street corner


----------



## P@triot

Exactly as one would expect...

California is full of psychopaths, ranks 2nd in nation, study finds


----------



## P@triot

The more “progressive” a city, state, or nation is, the more it is a regressive third-world hell-hole with nothing but uncivilized neanderthals roaming around.

What the  is going on in San Francisco?


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again (_literally_). This is left-wing policy doing the only thing it does.

Poop and needles litter the streets of San Francisco, but they ‘lead’ the world in waste mgmt


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. The left can’t win a clean election and they know it...

Non-citizens legally register to vote in San Francisco school elections


----------



## P@triot

Typical leftist with the most disgusting views and language. A shining example of the type of left-wing lunatic one will find in Hollywood, California.


> “I like when little boys touch me in my silly place,” he tweeted at one point.


The left has been trying to normalize pedophilia for almost a decade now. But it didn't stop there...


> “The Expendables was so manly I fucked the shit out of the little pussy boy next to me! The boys ARE back in town!” he said in another.


This sick progressive is heavily into pedophilia. But he kept going...


> “I’m doing a big Hollywood film adaptation of The Giving Tree with a happy ending – the tree grows back and gives the kid a blowjob,” read another.


Typical leftist - _obsessed_ with homosexual sex with children. They are so sick - "straight" sex with children isn't deviant enough for them. It has to be homosexual.

Liberal director fired from major movie by Disney after these offensive tweets surface


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. The supreme idiocy of the left, perfectly illustrated...


> In an article titled "Talking To Your Child About Sex," parents are also advised *not to "lecture" their children about sex* and should *let them "make their own decisions regarding sex*."


The left advocates that parents should never parent and that society should permit children (who have not been parented) to dictate how all of society should function. From firearm laws to sex to the economy.

California University Encourages Parents To Let Kids Watch Porn


----------



## Marion Morrison

BrokeLoser said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but...Silicon Valley, the Pacific Ocean...but, but, but...GDP!
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better? You can't be serious?
> Any state with fewer Mexicans, fewer Blacks and fewer Liberals...coincidence?
> But you probably don't want the whole truth and nothing but the truth do you? This is the kind of truth that causes you to cry RACIST, roll up in the fetal position and need a shower...it scares you.
Click to expand...


Pah! Ol' cold, rocky CA beaches. 

Siesta Key and Cocoa, baby! Now those are beaches!


----------



## P@triot

Failed left-wing policy has turned California into a third-world shit-hole.


> Have you noticed that California is beginning to have a lot in common with Venezuela? Big government regulations and ridiculously high taxes are driving people and industries out of both places -- at catastrophic rates.


Who hasn’t noticed? I’ve been talking about it for 5 years now.


> Hundreds of thousands of people have abandoned Venezuela this year alone, and industries are dying, leaving the country with a severe shortage of doctors, electricians, bus drivers, oil workers and more. In the past two years, California has seen a similar exodus as residents and businesses leave the state.


People flee from the perpetual poverty generated by idiotic left-wing policy.


> "It shows the painful truth of what American Progressives and hard core Socialists have in common. They’re job killers - and ultimately - *they destroy countries*," said Glenn on today's show.


The simple reality that even the left knows but refuse to admit.

SOCIALIST OPPRESSION: 3 things Venezuela and California have in common


----------



## Tax Man

What oppression do you have that makes you so envious of California? You can take all those southern welfare states and shove them. I love my California as it is better than any of the other states. Plenty of work and sunshine to work in as well as great money.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> What oppression do you have that makes you so envious of California? You can take all those southern welfare states and shove them. I love my California as it is better than any of the other states. Plenty of work and sunshine to work in as well as great money.


Of course you “love” California. You’re a parasite who mooches off of the people. But those who wake up every day and work their ass off are tired of people like you and they are fleeing California.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What oppression do you have that makes you so envious of California? You can take all those southern welfare states and shove them. I love my California as it is better than any of the other states. Plenty of work and sunshine to work in as well as great money.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you “love” California. You’re a parasite who mooches off of the people. But those who wake up every day and work their ass off are tired of people like you and they are fleeing California.
Click to expand...

So my having a construction company with employees makes me a mooch like you? Go bark at some other tree.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> So my having a construction company with employees makes me a mooch...?


You don’t have a company, Princess Snowflake. People who own companies don’t violently denounce tax cuts and the elimination of costly and unconstitutional regulations.

You’re a tried and true left-wing parasite. You mooch off of society, which is why conservative policy pisses you off so much.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So my having a construction company with employees makes me a mooch...?
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have a company, Princess Snowflake. People who own companies don’t violently denounce tax cuts and the elimination of costly and unconstitutional regulations.
> 
> You’re a tried and true left-wing parasite. You mooch off of society, which is why conservative policy pisses you off so much.
Click to expand...

I do have a concrete construction Co. My contractors license number is 529545. So snowflake you dick. The tax cuts did nothing for me or my business. And because of the SALT deduction removal the business pays more in federal taxes. My employees got no cut in taxes either. So blow yourself mr blowhard snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> The tax cuts did nothing for me or my business. My employees got no cut in taxes either. So blow yourself mr blowhard snowflake.


More proof that this progressive parasite *doesn’t* own a business...


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax cuts did nothing for me or my business. My employees got no cut in taxes either. So blow yourself mr blowhard snowflake.
> 
> 
> 
> More proof that this progressive parasite *doesn’t* own a business...
Click to expand...

If you wanna think so be my guest. As usual truth is beyond your comprehension.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


What state do you live in?


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> What state do you live in?


One that is exponentially better than California!


----------



## LeftofLeft

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .



Texas.


----------



## Timmy

LeftofLeft said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
Click to expand...


And what makes Texas better ?


----------



## LeftofLeft

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
Click to expand...


How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?


----------



## Timmy

LeftofLeft said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
Click to expand...


Per capita income

Cali 15th
Tex.  27th


----------



## LeftofLeft

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
Click to expand...


Better quality of life in Texas. Most of the per capita income on CA is being redistributed. Texas, not so much.


----------



## Timmy

LeftofLeft said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better quality of life in Texas. Most of the per capita income on CA is being redistributed. Texas, not so much.
Click to expand...


How do you objectively define “quality of life “?


----------



## Timmy

Life expectancy

Cali 3

Tex 29

These are the US states where people live the longest, healthiest lives — and the shortest


----------



## LeftofLeft

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better quality of life in Texas. Most of the per capita income on CA is being redistributed. Texas, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you objectively define “quality of life “?
Click to expand...


Good question. Here’s the answer: Lower taxes, less homeless, less regulation.


----------



## Timmy

Education. 

Cali 26

Tex 37

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education


----------



## Timmy

LeftofLeft said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better quality of life in Texas. Most of the per capita income on CA is being redistributed. Texas, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you objectively define “quality of life “?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question. Here’s the answer: Lower taxes, less homeless, less regulation.
Click to expand...


Why would “lower taxes “ = a better quality of life ?

You just make shit up .  Any measurable objective  stat shows Cali beating Texas .


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
Click to expand...

*Liberty*.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
Click to expand...

Texas: *no* state income tax
California: highest state income tax in the U.S.

‘Nough said


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
Click to expand...

Everything. Which is why people are fleeing California in record numbers and why people are running to Texas in record numbers.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Why would “lower taxes “ = a better quality of life ?


Of all the stupid shit you’ve said (and God knows there has been a lot), that is by far the dumbest.

Lower taxes means more money in my pocket. And more money in my pocket will _always_ directly equal “better quality of life”. Idiot.


----------



## Timmy

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas: *no* state income tax
> California: highest state income tax in the U.S.
> 
> ‘Nough said
Click to expand...


Saudi Arabia has no income tax .  They are better than the USA ?


----------



## Timmy

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would “lower taxes “ = a better quality of life ?
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the stupid shit you’ve said (and God knows there has been a lot), that is by far the dumbest.
> 
> Lower taxes means more money in my pocket. And more money in my pocket will _always_ directly equal “better quality of life”. Idiot.
Click to expand...


It also means less services .


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Any measurable objective  stat shows Cali beating Texas .


You’re right, Timmy. Here is a “measurable objective stat” that shows California definitely beating Texas (in the *worst* quality of life metric)... 

California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would “lower taxes “ = a better quality of life ?
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the stupid shit you’ve said (and God knows there has been a lot), that is by far the dumbest.
> 
> Lower taxes means more money in my pocket. And more money in my pocket will _always_ directly equal “better quality of life”. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also means less services .
Click to expand...

People with money don’t need “services”. A concept you parasites can’t grasp.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas: *no* state income tax
> California: highest state income tax in the U.S.
> 
> ‘Nough said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia has no income tax .  They are better than the USA ?
Click to expand...

We covered *liberty* in the previous post, Princess Snowflake.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
Click to expand...



And that means what exactly? They have a few more billionaires then Texas? California has a higher cost of living?


Texas by itself has the 8th largest economy in the world and it's growing from all the California transplant companies.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Timmy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would “lower taxes “ = a better quality of life ?
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the stupid shit you’ve said (and God knows there has been a lot), that is by far the dumbest.
> 
> Lower taxes means more money in my pocket. And more money in my pocket will _always_ directly equal “better quality of life”. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also means less services .
Click to expand...



For whom?


.


----------



## Timmy

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any measurable objective  stat shows Cali beating Texas .
> 
> 
> 
> You’re right, Timmy. Here is a “measurable objective stat” that shows California definitely beating Texas (in the *worst* quality of life metric)...
> 
> California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study
Click to expand...


Lol ! Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .


----------



## Timmy

bear513 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what exactly? They have a few more billionaires then Texas? California has a higher cost of living?
> 
> 
> Texas by itself has the 8th largest economy in the world and it's growing from all the California transplant companies.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Cali is 5th largest .  You lose again .


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .


Well let’s see....

North Dakota has an incredible landscape. Clean, fresh air. An abundance of jobs. An abundance of affordable energy. And the government stays out of the way - giving their citizens maximum liberty.

Only a left-wing lunatic would consider those things “bad”.


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Cali is 5th largest .  You lose again .


We also “lose” when it comes to worst quality of life. California takes the top spot for that!

California has worst ‘quality of life’ in U.S.: Study


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .


Oh...and streets in North Dakota aren’t covered in human feces and hypodermic heroin needles like they are in California!


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and streets in North Dakota aren’t covered in human feces and hypodermic heroin needles like they are in California!
Click to expand...



You forgot fires, earthquakes, smog, and lack of water.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Timmy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what exactly? They have a few more billionaires then Texas? California has a higher cost of living?
> 
> 
> Texas by itself has the 8th largest economy in the world and it's growing from all the California transplant companies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cali is 5th largest .  You lose again .
Click to expand...



How is that losing?


----------



## Thinker101

Timmy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what exactly? They have a few more billionaires then Texas? California has a higher cost of living?
> 
> 
> Texas by itself has the 8th largest economy in the world and it's growing from all the California transplant companies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cali is 5th largest .  You lose again .
Click to expand...



Yup, and it'll be painful to go from 5th to 12th.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Timmy said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better quality of life in Texas. Most of the per capita income on CA is being redistributed. Texas, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you objectively define “quality of life “?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question. Here’s the answer: Lower taxes, less homeless, less regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would “lower taxes “ = a better quality of life ?
> 
> You just make shit up .  Any measurable objective  stat shows Cali beating Texas .
Click to expand...


You mean like more companies and people leaving California for Texas.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> One that is exponentially better than California!


Are you embarrassed about the state you live in?  Why can't say what state that is?  What are you hiding?  What are you afraid of?  What state do you live in?


----------



## Timmy

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .
> 
> 
> 
> Well let’s see....
> 
> North Dakota has an incredible landscape. Clean, fresh air. An abundance of jobs. An abundance of affordable energy. And the government stays out of the way - giving their citizens maximum liberty.
> 
> Only a left-wing lunatic would consider those things “bad”.
Click to expand...


Yeah , it’s so great that no one bothers to live there .  And most of the population lives on the Minnesota border . P


----------



## Timmy

bear513 said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes Texas better ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many companies and people are fleeing Texas compared to California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per capita income
> 
> Cali 15th
> Tex.  27th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what exactly? They have a few more billionaires then Texas? California has a higher cost of living?
> 
> 
> Texas by itself has the 8th largest economy in the world and it's growing from all the California transplant companies.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cali is 5th largest .  You lose again .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How is that losing?
Click to expand...


Cause every objective stat has Cali ahead of Texas .


----------



## Timmy

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and streets in North Dakota aren’t covered in human feces and hypodermic heroin needles like they are in California!
Click to expand...


You would actually need to have streets and humans to have those things . 

While I’ve never been there,  I bet they have a big opioid / meth problem.   Quite common in these boring ass states .


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .
> 
> 
> 
> Well let’s see....
> 
> North Dakota has an incredible landscape. Clean, fresh air. An abundance of jobs. An abundance of affordable energy. And the government stays out of the way - giving their citizens maximum liberty.
> 
> Only a left-wing lunatic would consider those things “bad”.
Click to expand...





Seems lots of people are unhappy and committing suicide to escape the wonder of the maximum liberty.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One that is exponentially better than California!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you embarrassed about the state you live in?  Why can't say what state that is?  What are you hiding?  What are you afraid of?  What state do you live in?
Click to expand...

Nope. It’s just that progressives are cowards and thugs so I don’t divulge stuff like where I live. Don’t want my small children opening up a package that’s a bomb. Your side has a long and ugly history of doing that.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> Nope. It’s just that progressives are cowards and thugs so I don’t divulge stuff like where I live. Don’t want my small children opening up a package that’s a bomb. Your side has a long and ugly history of doing that.


That's your loss.  If a package comes from California, it probably has some good ass weed!


----------



## jasonnfree

P@triot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One that is exponentially better than California!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you embarrassed about the state you live in?  Why can't say what state that is?  What are you hiding?  What are you afraid of?  What state do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. It’s just that progressives are cowards and thugs so I don’t divulge stuff like where I live. Don’t want my small children opening up a package that’s a bomb. Your side has a long and ugly history of doing that.
Click to expand...


Which talk jock  taught you that progressives are cowards and thugs?


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> That's your loss.  If a package comes from California, it probably has some good ass weed!


That’s such a left thing to say... 

Never smoked weed. Never smoked _anything_. Never will.


----------



## jasonnfree

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. It’s just that progressives are cowards and thugs so I don’t divulge stuff like where I live. Don’t want my small children opening up a package that’s a bomb. Your side has a long and ugly history of doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your loss.  If a package comes from California, it probably has some good ass weed!
Click to expand...


Patriot definitely needs a  package of joy  that will  jazz up his life a little.  He's stuck on wepubwican gooood, democwat baaaad.   So sad.


----------



## P@triot

jasonnfree said:


> Which talk jock  taught you that progressives are cowards and thugs?


Life taught me that progressives are thugs and cowards. They cover their faces (like cowards) and only attack when they have mobs (thugs).

I remember maybe 20 years ago or so, an executive with an oil company lost his wife because some idiot progressive sent a mail bomb to his house. His wife opened it while he was at work. That’s the kind of crap the left does. And they’ve gotten much worse since then.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California




Poor you.
California is the 6th largest economy in the world.  
If they decided to secede, hayseeds like you would be fucked.
Fortunately for you, and us, they are considering breaking into 4-6 separates states, therefore giving them better representation in the Senate.
Then you will REALLY have something to whine about.


----------



## P@triot

jasonnfree said:


> Patriot definitely needs a  package of joy  that will  jazz up his life a little.  He's stuck on wepubwican gooood, democwat baaaad.   So sad.


While “Jasonn” is stuck on “I will ignore facts, reality, information, and data at all costs”.


----------



## Billo_Really

jasonnfree said:


> Which talk jock  taught you that progressives are cowards and thugs?


Alex Jones?


----------



## P@triot

WaitingFor2020 said:


> California is the 6th largest economy in the world.


They were 5th. But failed left-wing policy has been destroying the state and their economy. Now they are #1 in the U.S. in *worst* *quality* *of* *life*.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Timmy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any metric that lists North Dakota as #1 quality of life is obviously dubious .
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and streets in North Dakota aren’t covered in human feces and hypodermic heroin needles like they are in California!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would actually need to have streets and humans to have those things .
> 
> While I’ve never been there,  I bet they have a big opioid / meth problem.   Quite common in these boring ass states .
Click to expand...


NO DAK?  Why not?  Freezin's the reason.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

P@triot said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the 6th largest economy in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> They were 5th. But failed left-wing policy has been destroying the state and their economy. Now they are #1 in the U.S. in *worst* *quality* *of* *life*.
Click to expand...


How can they now be the 5th largest economy in the world and a failed left-wing economy?
Where is it that is number one in worst quality of life?
You don't provide a link.
Just your ignorant opinion.
Anywhere there is population density there is going to be a lower quality of life because of poverty.
No one is fleeing California, now are they?


----------



## deanrd

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


Just think.  That could have been Trump.  After all, he has unprotected sex with porn stars and then has sex with his wife.

He's so nasty.  A true role model for Republicans.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Too much time on your hands.  
You trolls go looking for any snippet that remotely supports your BI-ASS.


----------



## Theowl32

It isn't that they emody the misery, it is that they embrace the misery that makes them unsympathetic to me.

Those pathetic illegals who vote for the socialists that turned their shithole countries into the shitholes they are is one reason I cannot stand those brown shit stains.

That state will eventually be dissolved and absorbed by the federal government, and will become federal property.

Btw, one of the goals (main goal)of the globalists is destroy the United States of America. Well, if they destroy the states, they will destroy the United States of America.


----------



## deanrd

miketx said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
Click to expand...

Yea, but who wants to live in Texas?  Isn't it like the most polluted state in the country?


----------



## WaitingFor2020

deanrd said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> Just think.  That could have been Trump.  After all, he has unprotected sex with porn stars and then has sex with his wife.
> 
> He's so nasty.  A true role model for Republicans.
Click to expand...


Spot on.  Fucking porn stars in California and contributing to the unprotected sex/STD problem.
He's such a whore.  And so is the bitch on his right.  Melania is such a phony tart.


----------



## deanrd

Theowl32 said:


> It isn't that they emody the misery, it is that they embrace the misery that makes them unsympathetic to me.
> 
> Those pathetic illegals who vote for the socialists that turned their shithole countries into the shitholes they are is one reason I cannot stand those brown shit stains.
> 
> That country will eventually be dissolved and absorbed and will become federal property.
> 
> Btw, one of the goals (main goal)of the globalists is destroy the United States of America. Well, if they destroy the states, they will destroy the United States of America.


Not everyone can be destroying the US.  I think it's just Republicans, Russia and Isis currently.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

deanrd said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, but who wants to live in Texas?  Isn't it like the most polluted state in the country?
Click to expand...


We now have lived in the Galveston area of Texas for the last 2 years and it's called the *Carcinogenic Coast* for a reason.
Take 225 East into Houston and the chemical plants are overwhelming.
Like some sort of futuristic horror film.
The air stinks, sometimes smells of rotten flesh.
The locals say it's the chemical plants doing a burn off.
There's a lot of industrial accidents at these plants, too, that go unreported.
I hope we move back to N.O. early next year.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> That’s such a left thing to say...
> 
> Never smoked weed. Never smoked _anything_. Never will.


That's your problem.  Weed comes from God.


----------



## Billo_Really

jasonnfree said:


> Patriot definitely needs a  package of joy  that will  jazz up his life a little.  He's stuck on wepubwican gooood, democwat baaaad.   So sad.


He needs to live life by a different tune.  And that tune is...


----------



## P@triot

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Where is it that is number one in worst quality of life? You don't provide a link.


I’ve posted it almost half a dozen times in this thread alone. Which proves why you are the ultimate ignoramus. You comment without being informed. You’re not following this thread, but you’re still spouting your opinion.


----------



## P@triot

WaitingFor2020 said:


> He's such a *whore*.  And *so is the bitch on his right*.  Melania is such a phony tart.


Typical left-wing misogynist. All the males on the left have such a deep hatred of women. Would love to know the psychology behind that (probably due to mommy issues and broken homes).


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> That's your problem.  Weed comes from God.


And studies have found that schizophrenia comes from weed. Which explains everything with the left.

Marijuana DOES cause schizophrenia and triggers heart attacks, experts say | Daily Mail Online

Can Marijuana Trigger Schizophrenia?

Cannabis and schizophrenia: New evidence unveiled


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> And studies have found that schizophrenia comes from weed. Which explains everything with the left.
> 
> Marijuana DOES cause schizophrenia and triggers heart attacks, experts say | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Can Marijuana Trigger Schizophrenia?
> 
> Cannabis and schizophrenia: New evidence unveiled


I smoked weed for 20 years and I'm as sharp as a......... as sharp as a.......... um....... uh........*tack!*


----------



## Timmy

P@triot said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it that is number one in worst quality of life? You don't provide a link.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve posted it almost half a dozen times in this thread alone. Which proves why you are the ultimate ignoramus. You comment without being informed. You’re not following this thread, but you’re still spouting your opinion.
Click to expand...


“Quality of life “ = a made up stat to target California.

Name an objective stat.  And we can compare .


----------



## P@triot

Timmy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it that is number one in worst quality of life? You don't provide a link.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve posted it almost half a dozen times in this thread alone. Which proves why you are the ultimate ignoramus. You comment without being informed. You’re not following this thread, but you’re still spouting your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Quality of life “ = a made up stat to target California.
> 
> Name an objective stat.  And we can compare .
Click to expand...

That _is_ an “objective stat”. And it’s the most important. What could possibly be more important than your quality of life. Sorry Princess Snowflake, you lose. You’re just pissed off because that indisputably proves that California is the biggest shit-hole in the U.S.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...


> A California DMV worker slept at work daily for years, and an assistant fire chief used state resources to build a Tiki bar behind his home, according to a state auditor's report released Tuesday.



DMV Worker Slept Daily On the Job for Years


----------



## toobfreak

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .




Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois

Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana

Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin and
Wyoming


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Only a city in California could actually pass an ordinance resulting in *jail* *time* over straws. Freaking straws.

City of Santa Barbara, California, passes straw ordinance with harsh penalties, including jail time


----------



## P@triot

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Only a city in California could actually pass an ordinance resulting in *jail* *time* over straws. Freaking straws.
> 
> City of Santa Barbara, California, passes straw ordinance with harsh penalties, including jail time


----------



## P@triot

Hollywood, California epitomizes the left. Selfishness. Drugs. Promiscuity. And extreme sexual deviance. I can appreciate any attempt at humor - but this is just plain creepy as hell (especially when taken into context with his comments).

Photos Surface of 'Guardians' Director James Gunn at Pedophilia-Themed Party


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it that is number one in worst quality of life? You don't provide a link.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve posted it almost half a dozen times in this thread alone. Which proves why you are the ultimate ignoramus. You comment without being informed. You’re not following this thread, but you’re still spouting your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Quality of life “ = a made up stat to target California.
> 
> Name an objective stat.  And we can compare .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That _is_ an “objective stat”. And it’s the most important. What could possibly be more important than your quality of life. Sorry Princess Snowflake, you lose. You’re just pissed off because that indisputably proves that California is the biggest shit-hole in the U.S.
Click to expand...

California is a great place to live and work. So much nicer than texass or alabumer or carolins .


----------



## jasonnfree

A couple of haters making an obsession about how bad California is. Thread after thread after thread. Good for us in California since hopefully they'll never move here with their crap negativity and karma.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it that is number one in worst quality of life? You don't provide a link.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve posted it almost half a dozen times in this thread alone. Which proves why you are the ultimate ignoramus. You comment without being informed. You’re not following this thread, but you’re still spouting your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Quality of life “ = a made up stat to target California.
> 
> Name an objective stat.  And we can compare .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That _is_ an “objective stat”. And it’s the most important. What could possibly be more important than your quality of life. Sorry Princess Snowflake, you lose. You’re just pissed off because that indisputably proves that California is the biggest shit-hole in the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is a great place to live and work. So much nicer than texass or alabumer or carolins .
Click to expand...

thats kinda a matter of opinion aint it?....


----------



## Timmy

toobfreak said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alabama
> Alaska
> Arizona
> Arkansas
> Colorado
> Connecticut
> Delaware
> Florida
> Georgia
> Hawaii
> Idaho
> Illinois
> 
> Indiana
> Iowa
> Kansas
> Kentucky
> Louisiana
> Maine
> Maryland
> Massachusetts
> Michigan
> Minnesota
> Mississippi
> Missouri
> Montana
> 
> Nebraska
> Nevada
> New Hampshire
> New Jersey
> New Mexico
> North Carolina
> North Dakota
> Ohio
> Oklahoma
> Oregon
> Pennsylvania
> Rhode Island
> 
> South Carolina
> South Dakota
> Tennessee
> Texas
> Utah
> Vermont
> Virginia
> Washington
> West Virginia
> Wisconsin and
> Wyoming
Click to expand...


Very funny.

Now how about an objective criteria we can actually compare .


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> California is a great place to live and work. So much nicer than texass or alabumer or carolins .


That’s why it is *dead* *last* in quality of life, uh snowflake?


----------



## P@triot

The left refuses to learn. Insanity is making the same idiotic mistake over and over and over and expecting a different result each time. And that's what the left does.


> Tubbs and SEED are optimistic about the program, despite the recent failure of a three-year program in Canada that ended after only a year, and the non-renewal of a similar program in Finland.


This doesn't work. It's been done. And it *never* works. It *never* will work. The ignorance of the left is astounding. Feelz over facts _every_ time with those people.

California city gears up for universal basic income trial. Here’s how they’ll pay for it.


----------



## P@triot

Only the shit-hole state of California would pass laws like this...


> A California law that aims to limit the number of people who can refuse vaccines


I’m an American. I’ll refuse a vaccine _any_ fucking time I want. And I don’t need a “reason”. This isn’t the Soviet Union.

What's happened since California let fewer families reject vaccines


----------



## skye

Califucknia....

poor piece of land over there.

getting worse by the minute....stinkier ....dirtier.....yuckier.... 

me don't like anymore....LOL....me will stay away, of course

YUCK


----------



## P@triot

Leave it to the shit-hole state of California to struggle to even keep their fire departments up and running... 

California fire department feeling the squeeze; decides to charge hundreds per hour for services


----------



## Issa

If California is so shit...
Why it's the fifth biggest economy in the world ?
Why it has more billionaires, millionaires, highest paid, highest median incomes in the nation?
Why is it the most visited state by tourists ?
Why it has one of the highest GDP growth rate?
Huh ? Come deplorables ....explain.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Issa said:


> If California is so shit...
> Why it's the fifth biggest economy in the world ?
> Why it has more billionaires, millionaires, highest paid, highest median incomes in the nation?
> Why is it the most visited state by tourists ?
> Why it has one of the highest GDP growth rate?
> Huh ? Come deplorables ....explain.






*Why is it the most visited state by tourists ?*



People like visiting zoos/ freak shows..



.


.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why it's the fifth biggest economy in the world ?


Uh...because it is the second or third (behind Alaska and maybe Texas - can't remember) largest state in the United States. Combined with the climate (which has *nothing* to do with left-wing policy), it has a massive agricultural advantage. It also sits on the coast, giving it massive advantages in the fishing industry, tourist industry, and the import and export of goods through ports. And that stuff is just the tip of the iceberg.

It should be the the second biggest economy in the world. Instead, it's a shit-hole that can't pay its own bills.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_! No wonder rational people are fleeing California in droves.


> Several years ago, the State of California offered drivers of low or zero emission cars an opportunity to drive in the carpool lane. The goal, they said, was to encourage more people to buy electric cars, effectively saving the environment! I'm sure the revenue they gained from having to buy those cute little "zero emissions" carpool eligible permits didn't have anything to do with it.
> 
> This brings me to one of the newest laws California just passed. The state legislature just passed a law stating that the low emission carpool decals purchased before 2017 are no longer valid. If you want to continue to use the carpool lane, *you have to buy a brand new low emission car*.


Unbelievable. Nobody knows how to screw over their own citizens quite like the shit-hole state of California. No wonder it has the lowest quality of life in the entire United States.

Navigating THESE California laws is as bad as LA traffic


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why it has more billionaires, millionaires, highest paid, highest median incomes in the nation? Why is it the most visited state by tourists ? Why it has one of the highest GDP growth rate?


If California has more billionaires and millionaires than anyone, has the highest paid, has the highest median incomes, and the highest tourism (which would bring in ungodly amount of money), why is the shit-hole state of California $800 billion in debt? Why can't you people pay your bills if your the "5th largest economy in the U.S."? You do realize you make a greater case for just how absurd left-wing policy is when you spout about unimaginable economic success while still failing to pay ALL of your bills. Fuck, you people can't even pay your fire department!!! You have to tax citizens for it, and then change them on top of their taxes if they actually use the service that they pay taxes for! LMAO!!!


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_! No wonder rational people are fleeing California in droves.


> But you know, it's kind of funny, for all the fierce rhetoric from everyone from Hollywood to the San Fernando Valley regarding climate change and militant environmentalism… does this place look any cleaner than anywhere else? Have you ever actually driven or walked down Hollywood Boulevard or seen skid row in downtown LA? Try taking a drive down the 405, or any freeway in the LA area. It's a bumper to bumper mess, driving through a haze of smog and filth.


Yeah...more oppressive "global warming" laws than any state, and yet the most filth of any state. People literally defecating in the streets.

Navigating THESE California laws is as bad as LA traffic


----------



## Issa

bear513 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If California is so shit...
> Why it's the fifth biggest economy in the world ?
> Why it has more billionaires, millionaires, highest paid, highest median incomes in the nation?
> Why is it the most visited state by tourists ?
> Why it has one of the highest GDP growth rate?
> Huh ? Come deplorables ....explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is it the most visited state by tourists ?*
> 
> 
> 
> People like visiting zoos/ freak shows..
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Best attractions eat your heart.
Disneyland 
Universal studios
National parks
Beaches
Mountains
And so much more....unlike the useless flyover states.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why it's the fifth biggest economy in the world ?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...because it is the second or third (behind Alaska and maybe Texas - can't remember) largest state in the United States. Combined with the climate (which has *nothing* to do with left-wing policy), it has a massive agricultural advantage. It also sits on the coast, giving it massive advantages in the fishing industry, tourist industry, and the import and export of goods through ports. And that stuff is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> It should be the the second biggest economy in the world. Instead, it's a shit-hole that can't pay its own bills.
Click to expand...

Alternative facts much ? Lol


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why it has more billionaires, millionaires, highest paid, highest median incomes in the nation? Why is it the most visited state by tourists ? Why it has one of the highest GDP growth rate?
> 
> 
> 
> If California has more billionaires and millionaires than anyone, has the highest paid, has the highest median incomes, and the highest tourism (which would bring in ungodly amount of money), why is the shit-hole state of California $800 billion in debt? Why can't you people pay your bills if your the "5th largest economy in the U.S."? You do realize you make a greater case for just how absurd left-wing policy is when you spout about unimaginable economic success while still failing to pay ALL of your bills. Fuck, you people can't even pay your fire department!!! You have to tax citizens for it, and then change them on top of their taxes if they actually use the service that they pay taxes for! LMAO!!!
Click to expand...

Pumpkin is the 5th largest economy in the world....and another fact that a trump supporter wont know (you are an obvious trump lamb) the US in debt, most industrialized countries are, Texas is, and we pay the feds more than we receive unlike most of the useless red states. Dont bite the bad that feeds you (literally).


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_! No wonder rational people are fleeing California in droves.


> California just became the first state to restrict the distribution of plastic straws at restaurants under a bill signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown Thursday.


Their streets are littered in human feces and heroin needles, but Jerry Brown and the liberals are worried about plastic straws. 

California Just Became The First State To Ban Restaurants From Automatically Giving Out Plastic Straws


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why it's the fifth biggest economy in the world ?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...because it is the second or third (behind Alaska and maybe Texas - can't remember) largest state in the United States. Combined with the climate (which has *nothing* to do with left-wing policy), it has a massive agricultural advantage. It also sits on the coast, giving it massive advantages in the fishing industry, tourist industry, and the import and export of goods through ports. And that stuff is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> It should be the the second biggest economy in the world. Instead, it's a shit-hole that can't pay its own bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alternative facts much ? Lol
Click to expand...

Wait...it’s an “alternative fact” in your mind that California is the second or third largest state in the U.S.? Bwahahaha!!!


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Pumpkin is the 5th largest economy in the world....


And yet they can’t even pay their bills 

Indisputable proof that left-wing policy is incompetent.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_! No wonder rational people are fleeing California in droves.
> 
> 
> 
> California just became the first state to restrict the distribution of plastic straws at restaurants under a bill signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown Thursday.
> 
> 
> 
> Their streets are littered in human feces and heroin needles, but Jerry Brown and the liberals are worried about plastic straws.
> 
> California Just Became The First State To Ban Restaurants From Automatically Giving Out Plastic Straws
Click to expand...

The story of shit on the streets is way overblown by rethuglian propagandists of which you are one. The needles are complete hypodermic syringes. The real problem is there is so much work in San Francisco those who do not make $120,000 a year can not find housing. That is not something a loser state like tezass or nor car can claim in regards to wages or work.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin is the 5th largest economy in the world....
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they can’t even pay their bills
> 
> Indisputable proof that left-wing policy is incompetent.
Click to expand...

Incompetent immaterial and irrelevant seems to be your potential.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin is the 5th largest economy in the world....
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they can’t even pay their bills
> 
> Indisputable proof that left-wing policy is incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incompetent immaterial and irrelevant seems to be your potential.
Click to expand...

Only a greedy, idiot parasite would claim that paying your bills is “irrelevant”.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> The story of shit on the streets is way overblown by rethuglian propagandists of which you are one.


No, it isn’t. At all. There have been endless pictures. It is 100% accurate. Even the Dumbocrats of that shit-hole city have declared it a crisis.


Tax Man said:


> The needles are complete hypodermic syringes.


Yeah? And? Nobody is disputing that. I love how you somehow act like “complete” hypodermic needles somehow makes that ok.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin is the 5th largest economy in the world....
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they can’t even pay their bills
> 
> Indisputable proof that left-wing policy is incompetent.
Click to expand...

The US has trillions of dollars in debt so are most developed countries....you were saying?


----------



## jasonnfree

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_! No wonder rational people are fleeing California in droves.
> 
> 
> 
> California just became the first state to restrict the distribution of plastic straws at restaurants under a bill signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown Thursday.
> 
> 
> 
> Their streets are littered in human feces and heroin needles, but Jerry Brown and the liberals are worried about plastic straws.
> 
> California Just Became The First State To Ban Restaurants From Automatically Giving Out Plastic Straws
Click to expand...


You say 'Their streets are littered in human feces and heroin needles'..    Now, I've lived here in California on and off since the early '50's.  Never have I seen streets or neighborhoods like you describe.  I'm sure though if you go into certain neighborhoods looking for certain thrills, substances, or whatever, you will be able to find these kinds of streets.    So, what were you doing in these lowlife neighborhoods, p@triot?


----------



## P@triot

Typical left-wing dirtbags in typical shit-hole California...


> A California farm union *hid* *the* *results* *of* *a* *vote* in which workers elected to leave the union.


Leave it to the left to steal from the honest, hard-working man. And leave it to the left to ignore the results of an honest vote and impose their will anyway (just like good little oppressive communists).

Workers voted to leave farming union years ago — but the union hid results and kept taking dues


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they can’t even pay their bills
> 
> Indisputable proof that left-wing policy is incompetent.
> 
> 
> 
> The US has trillions of dollars in debt so are most developed countries....you were saying?
Click to expand...

Yeah...dillhole...thanks to *failed* left-wing policy. Are you actually this stupid or are you just feigning it due to lack of sound arguments? The left desires power and control over people. There is no easier way to achieve that than promise people “free” shit. Of course, nothing is free (only idiot, uneducated leftists believe that) - hence the massive debt anywhere you find left-wingers.


----------



## P@triot

jasonnfree said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_! No wonder rational people are fleeing California in droves.
> 
> 
> 
> California just became the first state to restrict the distribution of plastic straws at restaurants under a bill signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown Thursday.
> 
> 
> 
> Their streets are littered in human feces and heroin needles, but Jerry Brown and the liberals are worried about plastic straws.
> 
> California Just Became The First State To Ban Restaurants From Automatically Giving Out Plastic Straws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say 'Their streets are littered in human feces and heroin needles'..    Now, I've lived here in California on and off since the early '50's.  Never have I seen streets or neighborhoods like you describe.  I'm sure though if you go into certain neighborhoods looking for certain thrills, substances, or whatever, you will be able to find these kinds of streets.    So, what were you doing in these lowlife neighborhoods, p@triot?
Click to expand...

Psst...._stupid_...this is the part where you click on the link and read the story like I did.


----------



## P@triot

The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.


People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.

WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state


----------



## Theowl32

P@triot said:


> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state


Not the rich left wing elites, just like in Venezuela.

So, it's all good.

What you are looking at, is Feudalism. The rich and the completely fucked.

No middle class. Totally priced out.

See why the poor are so desperate to get out of those countries now?


----------



## P@triot

Theowl32 said:


> Not the rich left wing elites, just like in Venezuela.
> 
> What you are looking at, is Feudalism. The rich and the completely fucked. No middle class. Totally priced out.


And _that_ is the total focal point of the left. That is what their policies are designed to create. A ruling class and a subservient class that needs the ruling class to provide their most basic needs.


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state









California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.

Unemployment is 4.1%.

"No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.


----------



## Theowl32

P@triot said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the rich left wing elites, just like in Venezuela.
> 
> What you are looking at, is Feudalism. The rich and the completely fucked. No middle class. Totally priced out.
> 
> 
> 
> And _that_ is the total focal point of the left. That is what their policies are designed to create. A ruling class and a subservient class that needs the ruling class to provide their most basic needs.
Click to expand...

Why does Brazil speak Portuguese today?

Watch this short scene and see how masses are enslaved.


----------



## Thinker101

antontoo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
Click to expand...


Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?


----------



## AntonToo

Thinker101 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
Click to expand...


AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?

And did you even adjust these numbers by population? You do know shitload of people live in California....right?


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain. Unemployment is 4.1%. "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.


Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”. 

   

Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times


----------



## P@triot

Only antontoo would attempt to spin a homeless *crisis* as the epitome of “prosperity”. 

Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> Unemployment is 4.1%.


Which is *higher* than the 3.8% of the nation. Dumb ass.


----------



## bripat9643

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


Texas and Florida.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of *welfare* *recipients* and *highest* number of *homeless* people?
> 
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha!!! Um...since the beginning of time.


----------



## Thinker101

antontoo said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
> 
> And did you even adjust these numbers by population? You do know shitload of people live in California....right?
Click to expand...


So, as an example, 1 guy is a millionaire and 10 guys are homeless.  Is that a better yardstick?

BTW, there are a shitload of people in California, and I'm in the middle of it.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of *welfare* *recipients* and *highest* number of *homeless* people?
> 
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
Click to expand...


----------



## ptbw forever

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain. Unemployment is 4.1%. "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”.
> 
> View attachment 226820 View attachment 226821 View attachment 226822
> 
> Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

That is a 3rd world country Democrats.

Mississippi looks like Dubai compared to that.


----------



## P@triot

antontoo said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of *welfare* *recipients* and *highest* number of *homeless* people?
> 
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
Click to expand...

Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Radical partisan hack attempting to pretend that highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless is “not” a yardstick for the economy.


----------



## AntonToo

P@triot said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain. Unemployment is 4.1%. "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”.
> 
> View attachment 226820 View attachment 226821 View attachment 226822
> 
> Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...


My gosh, some tents? California must be a total shithole


----------



## AntonToo

ptbw forever said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain. Unemployment is 4.1%. "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”.
> 
> View attachment 226820 View attachment 226821 View attachment 226822
> 
> Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a 3rd world country Democrats.
> 
> Mississippi looks like Dubai compared to that.
Click to expand...


Idiot, have you ever been to ANY of these places?


----------



## ptbw forever

antontoo said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain. Unemployment is 4.1%. "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”.
> 
> View attachment 226820 View attachment 226821 View attachment 226822
> 
> Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a 3rd world country Democrats.
> 
> Mississippi looks like Dubai compared to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever been to ANY of these places?
Click to expand...

I have been to Mississippi and everyone has a basic idea of Dubai based on at least its exterior appearance.


----------



## AntonToo

ptbw forever said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain. Unemployment is 4.1%. "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”.
> 
> View attachment 226820 View attachment 226821 View attachment 226822
> 
> Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a 3rd world country Democrats.
> 
> Mississippi looks like Dubai compared to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever been to ANY of these places?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been to Mississippi and everyone has a basic idea of Dubai based on at least its exterior appearance.
Click to expand...


Well do your ignorant ass a favor and take a roadtrip down California coast one of these days.


----------



## Wyatt earp

antontoo said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
> 
> And did you even adjust these numbers by population? You do know shitload of people live in California....right?
Click to expand...



300,000 anchor baby's born a year .



.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
Click to expand...

I know a lot about California.  I've lived here for decades.  There might be four families on the purchase of that 936 sq ft home.  That's how the cost gets driven up.  Some other group of five families might come in and make an offer of $465,000.  That's what living in an immigrant heavy area is like.  

California is rapidly moving into a feudalistic society.  There are the very rich and their servants.  Then there are the service providers who care for the needs of the rich.  The service providers who care for the needs of the servants live in tents along the river.

It's becoming a very neatly divided society.


----------



## AntonToo

bear513 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
> 
> And did you even adjust these numbers by population? You do know shitload of people live in California....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 anchor baby's born a year ..
Click to expand...


Hear all, hear all. Economy shall be measured by number of anchor babies hence forth.


----------



## Wyatt earp

antontoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
> 
> And did you even adjust these numbers by population? You do know shitload of people live in California....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 anchor baby's born a year ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hear all, hear all. Economy shall be measured by number of anchor babies hence forth.
Click to expand...


----------



## AntonToo

Tipsycatlover said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know a lot about California.  I've lived here for decades.  There might be four families on the purchase of that 936 sq ft home.  That's how the cost gets driven up.  Some other group of five families might come in and make an offer of $465,000.  That's what living in an immigrant heavy area is like.
> 
> California is rapidly moving into a feudalistic society.  There are the very rich and their servants.  Then there are the service providers who care for the needs of the rich.  The service providers who care for the needs of the servants live in tents along the river.
> 
> It's becoming a very neatly divided society.
Click to expand...


Don't the rich know what a shithole California is? Why do they insist on living there in droves?


----------



## AntonToo

bear513 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND? Since when is that the yardstick of a good economy?
> 
> And did you even adjust these numbers by population? You do know shitload of people live in California....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 anchor baby's born a year ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hear all, hear all. Economy shall be measured by number of anchor babies hence forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 226830
Click to expand...


wtf does that have to do with anything?


----------



## ptbw forever

antontoo said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain. Unemployment is 4.1%. "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”.
> 
> View attachment 226820 View attachment 226821 View attachment 226822
> 
> Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a 3rd world country Democrats.
> 
> Mississippi looks like Dubai compared to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever been to ANY of these places?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been to Mississippi and everyone has a basic idea of Dubai based on at least its exterior appearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your ignorant ass a favor and take a roadtrip down California coast.
Click to expand...

I would never go to Commiefornia. Even to collect 1 million dollars.

California is the enemy.


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. Awa filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



California is the most prosperous state in the nation by right wing standards.  It ranks 10th in the country in per capita income, ahead of Utah, New York, away ahead of Texas down in 24th and red, red Arizona down in 32nd, or the tax cut heaven of Kansas down in 28th. 

You talk about all of the filth, the horrific life and California and that's not what my friend, who lives in Los Angeles half of the time tells me.  She says its beautiful and she loves it there.  If Trump wasn't President, she'd consider moving to LA.   

It's no longer a felony because HIV is not longer a death sentence.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


>


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Dragonlady said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. Awa filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the most prosperous state in the nation by right wing standards.  It ranks 10th in the country in per capita income, ahead of Utah, New York, away ahead of Texas down in 24th and red, red Arizona down in 32nd, or the tax cut heaven of Kansas down in 28th.
> 
> You talk about all of the filth, the horrific life and California and that's not what my friend, who lives in Los Angeles half of the time tells me.  She says its beautiful and she loves it there.  If Trump wasn't President, she'd consider moving to LA.
> 
> It's no longer a felony because HIV is not longer a death sentence.
Click to expand...

*I remember back 22 years ago they had a show on Cailf Taxes being so high.  A guy who makes stone carving had put many of them into his yard.  The state taxed them at a high rate. On the show he used a sledge hammer to destroy everone of them...Sad when the Gov, become repressive and want everyone to life the same life and condition. *


----------



## AntonToo

ptbw forever said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...you guys are just rollllllling along. Just look at all of that “prosperity”.
> 
> View attachment 226820 View attachment 226821 View attachment 226822
> 
> Essential California: L.A. homeless crisis grows. How do we fix it? - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 3rd world country Democrats.
> 
> Mississippi looks like Dubai compared to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever been to ANY of these places?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been to Mississippi and everyone has a basic idea of Dubai based on at least its exterior appearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your ignorant ass a favor and take a roadtrip down California coast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never go to Commiefornia. Even to collect 1 million dollars.
> 
> California is the enemy.
Click to expand...


Kids, this is your brain on conservatism.


----------



## my2¢

Talk of California reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote about the restaurant that nobody goes to anymore because it's too crowded.


----------



## USApatriotz

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


>



There are around 250 MOSQUES and GROWING in CalHELLfornia so eventually they'll add an Islamic crescent moon to that flag!


----------



## EvilCat Breath

I just got out of Los Angeles.   It is a filthy, stinking, toilet.  Literally a toilet.  People shit and piss on the streets just like they do in San Francisco.

Just before I left, I bought a fighting cane and started training in how to use it.  The beggars made getting gas dangerous.  My son said that's enough.   It's time to go.

Parts of LA are beautiful.  I had friends that lived in Bel Air.   Until the fires last summer.  The fires were started by homeless.  They moved.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

antontoo said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know a lot about California.  I've lived here for decades.  There might be four families on the purchase of that 936 sq ft home.  That's how the cost gets driven up.  Some other group of five families might come in and make an offer of $465,000.  That's what living in an immigrant heavy area is like.
> 
> California is rapidly moving into a feudalistic society.  There are the very rich and their servants.  Then there are the service providers who care for the needs of the rich.  The service providers who care for the needs of the servants live in tents along the river.
> 
> It's becoming a very neatly divided society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't the rich know what a shithole California is? Why do they insist on living there in droves?
Click to expand...

There is the very rich, increasingly foreign rich.  The wealthy of Russia and the Middle east, Sauds and Iranians.  There are the servants of the rich and the service providers to the rich.

It's becoming quite feudal.


----------



## ptbw forever

antontoo said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 3rd world country Democrats.
> 
> Mississippi looks like Dubai compared to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever been to ANY of these places?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been to Mississippi and everyone has a basic idea of Dubai based on at least its exterior appearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your ignorant ass a favor and take a roadtrip down California coast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never go to Commiefornia. Even to collect 1 million dollars.
> 
> California is the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids, this is your brain on conservatism.
Click to expand...

California is a racist state that is part of the Jim Crow North.

Fuck that meth lab of democracy.


----------



## denmark

Thinker101 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
Click to expand...

“Highest number”?
Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
It’s an attractive state obviously.


----------



## Thinker101

denmark said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
Click to expand...


Yup, it is attractive, the illegals love it....dumbass.


----------



## AntonToo

ptbw forever said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, have you ever been to ANY of these places?
> 
> 
> 
> I have been to Mississippi and everyone has a basic idea of Dubai based on at least its exterior appearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your ignorant ass a favor and take a roadtrip down California coast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never go to Commiefornia. Even to collect 1 million dollars.
> 
> California is the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids, this is your brain on conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is a racist state that is part of the Jim Crow North.
> 
> Fuck that meth lab of democracy.
Click to expand...


Dummy, even people on "your side" roll their eyes at crazy shit like that.


----------



## denmark

Thinker101 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it is attractive, the illegals love it....dumbass.
Click to expand...

And those rich Californian Republicans love to exploit those illegals, don’t they ... dumbass?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

denmark said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
Click to expand...

For every productive person that leaves, five illegals move in.   It will be the most populous state into the future.


----------



## Thinker101

denmark said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it is attractive, the illegals love it....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those rich Californian Republicans love to exploit those illegals, don’t they ... dumbass?
Click to expand...


No kidding, here I thought California was a blue state...dumbass.


----------



## denmark

Tipsycatlover said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For every productive person that leaves, five illegals move in.   It will be the most populous state into the future.
Click to expand...

You make NO SENSE.
If productive people (with money) leave, and poor illegals replace them, then WHY DOES PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA INCREASE IN VALUE, more so than in red states?
You are clueless about basic economics in your own country.


----------



## denmark

Thinker101 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it is attractive, the illegals love it....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those rich Californian Republicans love to exploit those illegals, don’t they ... dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding, here I thought California was a blue state...dumbass.
Click to expand...

It is a blue state, dumbass.


----------



## Thinker101

denmark said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> 
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it is attractive, the illegals love it....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those rich Californian Republicans love to exploit those illegals, don’t they ... dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding, here I thought California was a blue state...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a blue state, dumbass.
Click to expand...


There ya go, you're getting smarter by the hour, so if it is a blue state who is exploiting the illegals...dumbass.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

denmark said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For every productive person that leaves, five illegals move in.   It will be the most populous state into the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make NO SENSE.
> If productive people (with money) leave, and poor illegals replace them, then WHY DOES PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA INCREASE IN VALUE, more so than in red states?
> You are clueless about basic economics in your own country.
Click to expand...

Property increases because ten people sign the loan papers.  The price gets driven up when some other group has eleven people out bidding them.  Or, for the high end real estate,  the wealthy people just bid up one another.  

On these ordinary homes the foreclosure rate is enormous.


----------



## denmark

Thinker101 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, it is attractive, the illegals love it....dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those rich Californian Republicans love to exploit those illegals, don’t they ... dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No kidding, here I thought California was a blue state...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a blue state, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ya go, you're getting smarter by the hour, so if it is a blue state who is exploiting the illegals...dumbass.
Click to expand...

Too bad you are not getting smarter.
There are MANY republicans in California, dimbass. Most of the 1% are, perhaps.


----------



## denmark

Tipsycatlover said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is the world 6th 5th largest economy, just recently having surpased Great Britain.
> 
> Unemployment is 4.1%.
> 
> "No jobs"? "low income"? You are smoking crack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For every productive person that leaves, five illegals move in.   It will be the most populous state into the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make NO SENSE.
> If productive people (with money) leave, and poor illegals replace them, then WHY DOES PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA INCREASE IN VALUE, more so than in red states?
> You are clueless about basic economics in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property increases because ten people sign the loan papers.  The price gets driven up when some other group has eleven people out bidding them.  Or, for the high end real estate,  the wealthy people just bid up one another.
> 
> On these ordinary homes the foreclosure rate is enormous.
Click to expand...

Nice try.
The mostly unqualified no longer get mortgage loans since 2008.
Poor people can’t afford down payments.
The people WITH MONEY are bidding up prices in California, because they either LOVE CALIFORNIA or want to invest there.


----------



## Thinker101

denmark said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, it is attractive, the illegals love it....dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> And those rich Californian Republicans love to exploit those illegals, don’t they ... dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No kidding, here I thought California was a blue state...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a blue state, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ya go, you're getting smarter by the hour, so if it is a blue state who is exploiting the illegals...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you are not getting smarter.
> There are MANY republicans in California, dimbass. Most of the 1% are, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Most of the 1% are, perhaps?  WTF does that mean?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

denmark said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you got the email but you do realize California has the highest number of welfare recipients and highest number of homeless people?
> 
> 
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For every productive person that leaves, five illegals move in.   It will be the most populous state into the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make NO SENSE.
> If productive people (with money) leave, and poor illegals replace them, then WHY DOES PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA INCREASE IN VALUE, more so than in red states?
> You are clueless about basic economics in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property increases because ten people sign the loan papers.  The price gets driven up when some other group has eleven people out bidding them.  Or, for the high end real estate,  the wealthy people just bid up one another.
> 
> On these ordinary homes the foreclosure rate is enormous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try.
> The mostly unqualified no longer get mortgage loans since 2008.
> Poor people can’t afford down payments.
> The people WITH MONEY are bidding up prices in California, because they either LOVE CALIFORNIA or want to invest there.
Click to expand...

The mostly unqualified together become qualified.  I see it happening every day.  

Yes investors are buying up property.  California land is a hot market in Bejing.

Meanwhile the crush of poor are putting tent cities on our streets.


----------



## denmark

Thinker101 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those rich Californian Republicans love to exploit those illegals, don’t they ... dumbass?
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, here I thought California was a blue state...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a blue state, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ya go, you're getting smarter by the hour, so if it is a blue state who is exploiting the illegals...dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you are not getting smarter.
> There are MANY republicans in California, dimbass. Most of the 1% are, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the 1% are, perhaps?  WTF does that mean?
Click to expand...

Is the “Thinker 101” class the only one you completed? Try the 102 class, or the one on statistics/probabilities, or logical inference.


----------



## denmark

Tipsycatlover said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Highest number”?
> Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base?
> California is the most populous state in USA and will likely have the “highest number” of most categories, including the highest real estate & rent values ... because MANY people want to live there! (Supply/Demand).
> It’s an attractive state obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> For every productive person that leaves, five illegals move in.   It will be the most populous state into the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make NO SENSE.
> If productive people (with money) leave, and poor illegals replace them, then WHY DOES PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA INCREASE IN VALUE, more so than in red states?
> You are clueless about basic economics in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property increases because ten people sign the loan papers.  The price gets driven up when some other group has eleven people out bidding them.  Or, for the high end real estate,  the wealthy people just bid up one another.
> 
> On these ordinary homes the foreclosure rate is enormous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try.
> The mostly unqualified no longer get mortgage loans since 2008.
> Poor people can’t afford down payments.
> The people WITH MONEY are bidding up prices in California, because they either LOVE CALIFORNIA or want to invest there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mostly unqualified together become qualified.  I see it happening every day.
> 
> Yes investors are buying up property.  California land is a hot market in Bejing.
> 
> Meanwhile the crush of poor are putting tent cities on our streets.
Click to expand...

Tent cities on your streets? You live in California? How many unfortunates, or losers, go there because their own states are too COLD weather-wise or otherwise?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

denmark said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> For every productive person that leaves, five illegals move in.   It will be the most populous state into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> You make NO SENSE.
> If productive people (with money) leave, and poor illegals replace them, then WHY DOES PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA INCREASE IN VALUE, more so than in red states?
> You are clueless about basic economics in your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Property increases because ten people sign the loan papers.  The price gets driven up when some other group has eleven people out bidding them.  Or, for the high end real estate,  the wealthy people just bid up one another.
> 
> On these ordinary homes the foreclosure rate is enormous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try.
> The mostly unqualified no longer get mortgage loans since 2008.
> Poor people can’t afford down payments.
> The people WITH MONEY are bidding up prices in California, because they either LOVE CALIFORNIA or want to invest there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mostly unqualified together become qualified.  I see it happening every day.
> 
> Yes investors are buying up property.  California land is a hot market in Bejing.
> 
> Meanwhile the crush of poor are putting tent cities on our streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tent cities on your streets? You live in California? How many unfortunates, or losers, go there because their own states are too COLD weather-wise or otherwise?
Click to expand...

The losers come here because it is financially and the socially attractive.  The same reasons why they go to very cold Seattle.


----------



## Dschrute3

P@triot said:


> The video is _priceless_. The reality is _tragic_.
> 
> 
> People suffer horribly under left-wing policy. Rampant crime. No jobs. Low income. High costs. And the total eradication of liberty.
> 
> WATCH: Top 10 reasons to vote California’s politics OUT of your state



Very interesting. Good ole Communists. Thanks.


----------



## P@triot

denmark said:


> “Highest number”? Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base? California is the most populous state in USA and will *likely* have the “highest number” of *most* categories


Well, I will salute you for being exponentially more honest than most wing-nuts. But, you do look like a typical wing-nut partisan by trying to twist it like that.

California has decayed into a third-world-shit-hole. San Francisco is buried in human feces and heroin needles...and it is the “upscale” part of California. You don’t even want to wander into South Central.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Highest number”? Are you stupid or are you appealing to the stupid Trump voter base? California is the most populous state in USA and will *likely* have the “highest number” of *most* categories
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I will salute you for being exponentially more honest than most wing-nuts. But, you do look like a typical wing-nut partisan by trying to twist it like that.
> 
> California has decayed into a third-world-shit-hole. San Francisco is buried in human feces and heroin needles...and it is the “upscale” part of California. You don’t even want to wander into South Central.
> 
> View attachment 226988
Click to expand...

You watch too much fux news. California is the best place to live unlike any state in the south or even north central America. San Francisco has responded to the poop on the street problem and for the most part they are not poopy. The needles are only in a small section of the business district.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> San Francisco has *responded* *to* *the* *poop* on the street *problem*


The fact that that “problem” even existed in the first place and required “response” to it says it all. The fact that you don’t even grasp that much says even more.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco has *responded* *to* *the* *poop* on the street *problem*
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that that “problem” even existed in the first place and required “response” to it says it all. The fact that you don’t even grasp that much says even more.
Click to expand...

You are one sad person. Good for laughs though.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco has *responded* *to* *the* *poop* on the street *problem*
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that that “problem” even existed in the first place and required “response” to it says it all. The fact that you don’t even grasp that much says even more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one sad person. Good for laughs though.
Click to expand...

Another “intelligent” response by the parasite of society!


----------



## DOTR

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in cali
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
Click to expand...


 1 out of 3 welfare recipients in the US lives in California.


----------



## P@triot

California is the laughingstock of the United States...


----------



## Jarlaxle

jasonnfree said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, Califorina is one of the riches and most advance economies on this planet. Do you know what real misery is? Asshole? Mississippi, Alabama and most of the south are truly the poorest, least educated and most backwards shit holes this country has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't call any state a craphole.  They all have their own history, traditions, good people, not so good people  etc.
Click to expand...

Some have absolutely nothing to recommend them.  Rhode Island, for example.  No redeeming qualities whatsoever, should be rented out by the acre for target practice.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Seawytch said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> California wants to be independent...
> 
> Earthquakes, mud slides, forest fires, huge debt, sexual criminal deviants, Hollywood pushing violent / sexual deviant culture...
> 
> Perhaps Trump's wall should wall off California  from the rest of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CA would do fine...y'all might not like the price you'd end up paying for produce though...
Click to expand...

And you might not like what you'd end up paying for water and electricity.


----------



## P@triot

This state hasn’t even figured out how to put out fires yet!!!! Cheese and rice...it’s 2018 and fires burn down their entire damn state every other week. It’s incredible. How are these people not embarrassed? When my state has a fire, it’s pretty much put out within an hour and without spreading _anywhere_.


----------



## Seawytch

Jarlaxle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> California wants to be independent...
> 
> Earthquakes, mud slides, forest fires, huge debt, sexual criminal deviants, Hollywood pushing violent / sexual deviant culture...
> 
> Perhaps Trump's wall should wall off California  from the rest of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CA would do fine...y'all might not like the price you'd end up paying for produce though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you might not like what you'd end up paying for water and electricity.
Click to expand...


Those are already local, not Federal. Besides, I'm switching to solar and I'm on a well.


----------



## Jarlaxle

You do not even understand that you do not understand.


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> This state hasn’t even figured out how to put out fires yet!!!! Cheese and rice...it’s 2018 and fires burn down their entire damn state every other week. It’s incredible. How are these people not embarrassed? When my state has a fire, it’s pretty much put out within an hour and without spreading _anywhere_.



Wow, apparently MAGA stands for "Make Americans Assholes Again". Way to double down on your Orange leaders 's assholiness.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


guess we have to rely on good old fashioned morals.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This state hasn’t even figured out how to put out fires yet!!!! Cheese and rice...it’s 2018 and fires burn down their entire damn state every other week. It’s incredible. How are these people not embarrassed? When my state has a fire, it’s pretty much put out within an hour and without spreading _anywhere_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, apparently MAGA stands for "Make Americans Assholes Again". Way to double down on your Orange leaders 's assholiness.
Click to expand...

Wow...way to avoid the issue because you can’t deny it.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Wow, apparently MAGA stands for "Make Americans Assholes Again". Way to double down on your Orange leaders 's assholiness.


Psst....that would be MAAA (not MAGA).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> guess we have to rely on good old fashioned morals.
Click to expand...

Yeah...nothing says “morals” like making it legal to knowingly spread AIDS.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> guess we have to rely on good old fashioned morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...nothing says “morals” like making it legal to knowingly spread AIDS.
Click to expand...

only if you have no morals.  simple compulsion of the law is socialism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only if you have no morals.  simple *compulsion* *of* *the* *law* is socialism.


Please stop using words that you don’t know how to use. You don’t sound “smart” - you sound borderline retarded.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only if you have no morals.  simple *compulsion* *of* *the* *law* is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop using words that you don’t know how to use. You don’t sound “smart” - you sound borderline retarded.
Click to expand...

you simply don't understand the concepts.


----------



## P@triot

Here is a Dumbocrat representative from California proposing using nuclear weapons on American citizens who refuse to surrender their 2nd Amendment right.


> Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.


Ladies & Gentlemen...this is how radicalized the left has become. Their elected representatives propose using nuclear weapons on any American citizen looking to exercise their constitutional rights.

Democrat Calls For Gun Confiscation, Suggests Nuking Americans Who Fight Back


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only if you have no morals.  simple *compulsion* *of* *the* *law* is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop using words that you don’t know how to use. You don’t sound “smart” - you sound borderline retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply don't understand the concepts.
Click to expand...

You simply don’t know the definitions.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only if you have no morals.  simple *compulsion* *of* *the* *law* is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop using words that you don’t know how to use. You don’t sound “smart” - you sound borderline retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don’t know the definitions.
Click to expand...

simple compulsion of the law is socialism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> simple compulsion of the law is socialism.


Simple “compulsion” of words you don’t know is stupidity.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple compulsion of the law is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple “compulsion” of words you don’t know is stupidity.
Click to expand...

you have to consider in Context not a vacuum of special pleading. 

Socialism or Capitalism.

Capitalism is supposed to be about voluntary market based transactions, not the Coercion and Compulsion of Socialism.


----------



## P@triot

California and it’s left-wing lunatics has 0 tolerance for even historically accurate culture.

‘Racist as f***!’: College students come unglued over PragerU’s Will Witt dressed as Native American


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> California and it’s left-wing lunatics has 0 tolerance for even historically accurate culture.
> 
> ‘Racist as f***!’: College students come unglued over PragerU’s Will Witt dressed as Native American


right wingers aren't known for their natural rights.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California and it’s left-wing lunatics has 0 tolerance for even historically accurate culture.
> 
> ‘Racist as f***!’: College students come unglued over PragerU’s Will Witt dressed as Native American
> 
> 
> 
> right wingers aren't known for their natural rights.
Click to expand...

And you aren’t known for intellect.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California and it’s left-wing lunatics has 0 tolerance for even historically accurate culture.
> 
> ‘Racist as f***!’: College students come unglued over PragerU’s Will Witt dressed as Native American
> 
> 
> 
> right wingers aren't known for their natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you aren’t known for intellect.
Click to expand...

you can't dismiss the natural rights argument simply Because it is not specifically about guns.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> you can't dismiss the natural rights argument simply Because it is not specifically about guns.


You have no argument. Conservatives are the one’s who uphold the U.S. Constitution and natural rights. You’re the jack-ass who denies both.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't dismiss the natural rights argument simply Because it is not specifically about guns.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no argument. Conservatives are the one’s who uphold the U.S. Constitution and natural rights. You’re the jack-ass who denies both.
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't dismiss the natural rights argument simply Because it is not specifically about guns.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no argument. Conservatives are the one’s who uphold the U.S. Constitution and natural rights. You’re the jack-ass who denies both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...

Only because you can’t accept *reality*.


----------



## danielpalos

I am trying to convince local government to request a State Corps of Engineers, for engineering purposes, so we can create more, "manufacturing" jobs.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I am trying to convince local government to request a State Corps of Engineers, for engineering purposes, so we can create more, "manufacturing" jobs.


While you simultaneously demand $15 per hour minimum wage and FTE salaries for those unemployed - both of which eliminates jobs.


----------



## danielpalos

they eliminate low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services.


----------



## otto105

whitehall said:


> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?




5th largest economy in the world and has a 1 BILLION  dollar state surplus.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> they eliminate low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services.


Low wage jobs that “don’t cover the cost of social services” wouldn’t exist if idiot socialist wouldn’t subsidize those jobs with social services.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> 5th largest economy in the world and *has a 1 BILLION  dollar state surplus*.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> 5th largest economy in the world and *has a 1 BILLION  dollar state surplus*.


Just look at all of that “surplus” 

State of California Debt Clock


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> 5th largest economy in the world and *has a 1 BILLION  dollar state surplus*.


5th largest economy in the world. 2nd largest *debt* in the world.


> According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe *$1.3 trillion* as of June 30, 2015.” The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.” In other words, that *$1.3 trillion* in debt is the amount to which California governments *admit*.


Yep. A staggering $1.3 trillion in debt. And that’s only what the Dumbocrats will admit. There is plenty more which they are hiding.

The Top Four Reasons California Is Unsustainable


----------



## P@triot

The 3rd world shit-hole state sure hates the U.S. Constitution...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they eliminate low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services.
> 
> 
> 
> Low wage jobs that “don’t cover the cost of social services” wouldn’t exist if idiot socialist wouldn’t subsidize those jobs with social services.
Click to expand...

Especially after 1929.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5th largest economy in the world and *has a 1 BILLION  dollar state surplus*.
> 
> 
> 
> 5th largest economy in the world. 2nd largest *debt* in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe *$1.3 trillion* as of June 30, 2015.” The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.” In other words, that *$1.3 trillion* in debt is the amount to which California governments *admit*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. A staggering $1.3 trillion in debt. And that’s only what the Dumbocrats will admit. There is plenty more which they are hiding.
> 
> The Top Four Reasons California Is Unsustainable
Click to expand...

California increased our watersheds a few years ago.  We had a drought.  Our watersheds are bigger and will be able to shed more water. 

California is only recently running surpluses.  It is difficult to budget for infrastructure with tax cut economics. And, infrastructure jobs are almost manufacturing jobs.  We should be upgrading our State anyway.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they eliminate low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services.
> 
> 
> 
> Low wage jobs that “don’t cover the cost of social services” wouldn’t exist if idiot socialist wouldn’t subsidize those jobs with social services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Especially after 1929.
Click to expand...

Especially _any_ time. When you subsidize failure, you get failure. Only the clueless and causes left-wing is still baffled by that reality.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> California is only recently running surpluses.  It is difficult to budget for infrastructure with tax cut economics.


Snowflake...when Republicans cut taxes at the federal level...that has absolutely *nothing* to do with California’s state income taxes. Nothing. In fact, it’s the optimum opportunity for California to raise their taxes since their residents have more money in their pockets thanks to Republicans.

When you try to invent arguments for why left-wing policy is failing, you come across looking like a moron. It would be so much easier for you if you would just accept reality.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they eliminate low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services.
> 
> 
> 
> Low wage jobs that “don’t cover the cost of social services” wouldn’t exist if idiot socialist wouldn’t subsidize those jobs with social services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Especially after 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Especially _any_ time. When you subsidize failure, you get failure. Only the clueless and causes left-wing is still baffled by that reality.
Click to expand...

lol.  Because it only happens in right wing fantasy. 

Many of FDR's economic policies are recognized as Standard practice in modern times,


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is only recently running surpluses.  It is difficult to budget for infrastructure with tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...when Republicans cut taxes at the federal level...that has absolutely *nothing* to do with California’s state income taxes. Nothing. In fact, it’s the optimum opportunity for California to raise their taxes since their residents have more money in their pockets thanks to Republicans.
> 
> When you try to invent arguments for why left-wing policy is failing, you come across looking like a moron. It would be so much easier for you if you would just accept reality.
Click to expand...

even anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.  the last time we had a recession, our State surpluses vanished for awhile.   rebates may have had something to do with it.  all that money "wasted" instead of building more infrastrucure.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is only recently running surpluses.  It is difficult to budget for infrastructure with tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...when Republicans cut taxes at the federal level...that has absolutely *nothing* to do with California’s state income taxes. Nothing. In fact, it’s the optimum opportunity for California to raise their taxes since their residents have more money in their pockets thanks to Republicans.
> 
> When you try to invent arguments for why left-wing policy is failing, you come across looking like a moron. It would be so much easier for you if you would just accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, snowflake, it doesn’t.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Many of FDR's economic policies....


....have resulted in *$21* *trillion* in national debt.

Only the clueless and causeless left-wing can’t figure it out.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is only recently running surpluses.  It is difficult to budget for infrastructure with tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...when Republicans cut taxes at the federal level...that has absolutely *nothing* to do with California’s state income taxes. Nothing. In fact, it’s the optimum opportunity for California to raise their taxes since their residents have more money in their pockets thanks to Republicans.
> 
> When you try to invent arguments for why left-wing policy is failing, you come across looking like a moron. It would be so much easier for you if you would just accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, snowflake, it doesn’t.
Click to expand...

yes, raindrop, it does.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of FDR's economic policies....
> 
> 
> 
> ....have resulted in *$21* *trillion* in national debt.
> 
> Only the clueless and causeless left-wing can’t figure it out.
Click to expand...

Tax cut economics has done that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Tax cut economics has done that.


Debt can _only_ be achieved by spending. That is a *fact*. If you had an income of $0 but you spent $0, you wouldn’t have any debt. None.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cut economics has done that.
> 
> 
> 
> Debt can _only_ be achieved by spending. That is a *fact*. If you had an income of $0 but you spent $0, you wouldn’t have any debt. None.
Click to expand...

Financing is a form of Spending.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Financing is a form of Spending.


Words have meaning, Daniel. You don’t get to make up your own meanings for words just because the facts have backed you into a corner and you’ve had your ass handed to you on a platter.

Financing means to arrange for money. It does not even remotely mean “spending” or a “form” of spending. Congrats...you just hit a new low of desperate stupidity.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Financing is a form of Spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Words have meaning, Daniel. You don’t get to make up your own meanings for words just because the facts have backed you into a corner and you’ve had your ass handed to you on a platter.
> 
> Financing means to arrange for money. It does not even remotely mean “spending” or a “form” of spending. Congrats...you just hit a new low of desperate stupidity.
Click to expand...

it is being spent and financed.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about micro or macro economics.


----------



## anynameyouwish

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



California's economy of $2.7 trillion sits behind *the United States*, *China*, *Japan* and *Germany*. California's large economy is attributed to its thriving tech sector and Hollywood, according to the Associated Press. It has 12% of the U.S. *population*, but has contributed 16% of total job growth between 2012 and 2017.May 5, 2018
*California's Economy Is 5th Biggest in the World, Ahead of the UK ...*

fortune.com/2018/05/05/california-fifth-biggest-economy-passes-united-kingdom/


----------



## P@triot

What a shit-hole state with shit-hole “leadership”....


> And who was responsible for that poor management? Why only the guy who has been busily trying to point the finger of blame at Trump: California Governor Jerry Brown.


The left is too stupid to even get out of their own way. Basic principles that were learned hundreds of years ago (such as fire prevention) are still foreign curiousities to the left-wing nitwits.

Delingpole: Brown Fiddled While California Burned


----------



## P@triot

What a shit-hole state with shit-hole “leadership”....


> Prescribed burns, fire breaks, and adequate roads allowing firefighters quick access into forests are all a part of proper forest management but are largely absent from California’s government-managed forests. People managing forests on private land must deal with the state’s Byzantine bureaucracy to obtain permits enabling them to carry out fire prevention measures on their land.


The left is too stupid to even get out of their own way. Basic principles that were learned hundreds of years ago (such as fire prevention) are still foreign curiousities to the left-wing nitwits.

Delingpole: Brown Fiddled While California Burned


----------



## P@triot

What a shit-hole state with shit-hole “leadership”....


> In 2016, Governor Brown vetoed a bipartisan wildfire management bill that had unanimously passed the state Assembly and Senate. For decades, radical environmentalists have demanded – and legislators, regulators and judges have approved – “wildlands preservation” and “fires are natural” policies. Tree thinning has been banned, resulting in thousands of skinny, fire-susceptible trees growing where only a few hundred should be present. Even removing diseased, dead and burned trees has been prohibited.


Radical wing-nut Jerry Brown vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have prevented the entire thing!

Delingpole: Brown Fiddled While California Burned


----------



## P@triot

What a shit-hole state with shit-hole “leadership”....


> So ecological dogma took priority over human lives.


Nice job, “Moonbeam”. Over 70 lives lost so you could save trees and bugs. That illustrates the priorities of the left. Sad. And ignorant.

Delingpole: Brown Fiddled While California Burned


----------



## Staidhup

They can afford to remain the land of fruit and nuts, they know full well the government will bail out their pathetic ass.


----------



## danielpalos

Muster the State militia!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Muster the State militia!


And do what, exactly, Daniel? Overthrow the government? How would the milita help with the dreadful choices of the legally elected (but bat-shit crazy) radicals elected to public office in California?

Do you think before you speak or do you just copy and paste that stupid ass phrase all day long?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the State militia!
> 
> 
> 
> And do what, exactly, Daniel? Overthrow the government? How would the milita help with the dreadful choices of the legally elected (but bat-shit crazy) radicals elected to public office in California?
> 
> Do you think before you speak or do you just copy and paste that stupid ass phrase all day long?
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

California State Militia should also be fire suppression qualified and jump capable.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> California State Militia *should* also be fire suppression qualified and jump capable.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


Piles of fecal matter isn’t a “security problem”. It is ignorant failed left-wing policy problem.


----------



## otto105

miketx said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
Click to expand...



They have to bribe people to move to texas


----------



## otto105

Build the wall! Around texas and keep‘m all in there.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Piles of fecal matter isn’t a “security problem”. It is ignorant failed left-wing policy problem.
Click to expand...

Sorry that republicans walk around but they are not true fecal matter.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the State militia!
> 
> 
> 
> And do what, exactly, Daniel? Overthrow the government? How would the milita help with the dreadful choices of the legally elected (but bat-shit crazy) radicals elected to public office in California?
> 
> Do you think before you speak or do you just copy and paste that stupid ass phrase all day long?
Click to expand...

The people we elect have done what we want. The bat shit crazys are conservatives as they believe in stupidity.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Sorry that republicans walk around but *they* *are* *not* true fecal matter.


Exactly. Dumb ass. You don’t even have the IQ to make a joke. 

It’s painfully clear why you need government to survive.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> The people we elect have done what we want.


Exactly. *We* *the* *People* elected *President* *Trump* and he has done *exactly* what the American people want!


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> View attachment 233403


You know what’s really funny about this, Hack Man? The Nazis studied the Democrat Party and their use of propaganda, eugenics, etc. for their doctrine.

(****WARNING**** this will sting as you hate facts & truth - but it is _still_ good for you)


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> The people we elect have done what we want.


Wait...so you *want* your cities covered in human feces? Damn man, you’re even more disturbed than I realized. And that’s saying a lot because I knew you were one sorry and disturbed S.O.B.


----------



## Tax Man

I guess I really get under your skin with my posts. Too bad all you can do is insult and degrade your already useless self.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people we elect have done what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...so you *want* your cities covered in human feces? Damn man, you’re even more disturbed than I realized. And that’s saying a lot because I knew you were one sorry and disturbed S.O.B.
Click to expand...

I want the fecal matter to leave the state then we can have clean streets in San Francisco and no stupid people around anymore. I consider conservatives less than shit.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> I guess I really get under your skin with my posts.


Why does every left-wing loon resort to that lame line when they get obliterated with facts?


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people we elect have done what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...so you *want* your cities covered in human feces? Damn man, you’re even more disturbed than I realized. And that’s saying a lot because I knew you were one sorry and disturbed S.O.B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want the fecal matter to leave the state...
Click to expand...

No you don’t. You just admitted that the representatives have done what you elected them to do. And what they’ve done is created a literal 3rd world shit-hole where the streets are covered in human feces.


----------



## Dale Smith

Just spent two weeks in L.A...Culver City to be exact. What a fucked up state.....seriously. They plan to ban all plastic straws by 2021. Their traffic sucks because they use one of the traffic lanes for bicycles. I feel bad for the people stuck there. How could the average person ever save enough money to leave that hell hole with rent being so ungodly high while illegals are being subsidized? Wanna see what America would be like under total demcrat commie rule? Look no further than Califlakia.


----------



## P@triot

Dale Smith said:


> Just spent two weeks in L.A...Culver City to be exact. What a fucked up state.....seriously. They plan to ban all plastic straws by 2021. Their traffic sucks because they use one of the traffic lanes for bicycles. I feel bad for the people stuck there. How could the average person ever save enough money to leave that hell hole with rent being so ungodly high while illegals are being subsidized? Wanna see what America would be like under total demcrat commie rule? Look no further than Califlakia.


It is just the worst. An absolute shit-hole state. And the most amazing part is that they are $800 billion in debt. If my state were $800 billion in debt, the streets would literally be paved with gold.


----------



## danielpalos

Dale Smith said:


> Just spent two weeks in L.A...Culver City to be exact. What a fucked up state.....seriously. They plan to ban all plastic straws by 2021. Their traffic sucks because they use one of the traffic lanes for bicycles. I feel bad for the people stuck there. How could the average person ever save enough money to leave that hell hole with rent being so ungodly high while illegals are being subsidized? Wanna see what America would be like under total demcrat commie rule? Look no further than Califlakia.


some on the left are advocating for improving reclamation and repurposing technologies to start making money from cleaning up our land and ocean environments.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. No wonder that state produces so many serial killers, rapists, drug addicts, and other criminals.


> Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula (D) says he spanked his daughter Sunday night because the child was "acting out."


What sweet, sweet poetic justice. A Dumbocrat - who helped create the nanny state - has his children unjustly taken away by the nanny state.

California state lawmaker arrested for child abuse; kids taken away after he spanked 7-year-old daughter


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. Just when you thought the socialist hell-hole couldn’t get any worse, they invent ways to reach new lows.

California considers charging residents a tax for sending text messages


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people we elect have done what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...so you *want* your cities covered in human feces? Damn man, you’re even more disturbed than I realized. And that’s saying a lot because I knew you were one sorry and disturbed S.O.B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want the fecal matter to leave the state then we can have clean streets in San Francisco and no stupid people around anymore. I consider conservatives less than shit.
Click to expand...

Democrat socialists are going to bring even more fecal matter into the state from south of the border and make you pay for it too.  Democrats are maggots and deserve to live like maggots.   The state needs an orkin man in the worst way.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Dale Smith said:


> Just spent two weeks in L.A...Culver City to be exact. What a fucked up state.....seriously. They plan to ban all plastic straws by 2021. Their traffic sucks because they use one of the traffic lanes for bicycles. I feel bad for the people stuck there. How could the average person ever save enough money to leave that hell hole with rent being so ungodly high while illegals are being subsidized? Wanna see what America would be like under total demcrat commie rule? Look no further than Califlakia.


Culver City is nice compared to West LA.  The west side is covered in shit.  In the summer it dries out and becomes fecal snow.  It drifts onto everything.


----------



## P@triot

Companies and people are fleeing the progressive shit-hole state of California...


> A report last week showed that nearly 2,000 companies left California in 2016, with most of them moving to Texas.


Idiotic left-wing policy has resulted in California closely resembling a 3rd world country.

Texas governor hilariously responds to news of California companies flocking to his state


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Companies and people are fleeing the progressive shit-hole state of California...
> 
> 
> 
> A report last week showed that nearly 2,000 companies left California in 2016, with most of them moving to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic left-wing policy has resulted in California closely resembling a 3rd world country.
> 
> Texas governor hilariously responds to news of California companies flocking to his state
Click to expand...

Cheap labor is all they want.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies and people are fleeing the progressive shit-hole state of California...
> 
> 
> 
> A report last week showed that nearly 2,000 companies left California in 2016, with most of them moving to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic left-wing policy has resulted in California closely resembling a 3rd world country.
> 
> Texas governor hilariously responds to news of California companies flocking to his state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheap labor is all they want.
Click to expand...

Yeah. No shit. That’s the idea. You can’t make money if you over pay for labor (or materials, or taxes, etc.).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies and people are fleeing the progressive shit-hole state of California...
> 
> 
> 
> A report last week showed that nearly 2,000 companies left California in 2016, with most of them moving to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic left-wing policy has resulted in California closely resembling a 3rd world country.
> 
> Texas governor hilariously responds to news of California companies flocking to his state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheap labor is all they want.
Click to expand...

And cheap taxes. And less costly regulations. And more liberty.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies and people are fleeing the progressive shit-hole state of California...
> 
> 
> 
> A report last week showed that nearly 2,000 companies left California in 2016, with most of them moving to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic left-wing policy has resulted in California closely resembling a 3rd world country.
> 
> Texas governor hilariously responds to news of California companies flocking to his state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheap labor is all they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. No shit. That’s the idea. You can’t make money if you over pay for labor (or materials, or taxes, etc.).
Click to expand...

Cheap labor is not an option in our First World economy.  Automation may be the best option.  We can always compensate labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  That is what socialism can be Good for.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies and people are fleeing the progressive shit-hole state of California...
> 
> 
> 
> A report last week showed that nearly 2,000 companies left California in 2016, with most of them moving to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic left-wing policy has resulted in California closely resembling a 3rd world country.
> 
> Texas governor hilariously responds to news of California companies flocking to his state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheap labor is all they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And cheap taxes. And less costly regulations. And more liberty.
Click to expand...

the third world is even cheaper.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Cheap labor is not an option in our First World economy.


That’s _only_ true where Dumbocrats are in charge.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the third world is even cheaper.


Which is exactly why Dumbocrats have driven so many of our jobs overseas.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap labor is not an option in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s _only_ true where Dumbocrats are in charge.
Click to expand...

the left is for increasing the minimum wage so Labor can afford to participate more in our First World economy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the third world is even cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why Dumbocrats have driven so many of our jobs overseas.
Click to expand...

We have a Command Economy.  Only lousy capitalists refuse to build new cities in more optimum locations.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap labor is not an option in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s _only_ true where Dumbocrats are in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the left is for increasing the minimum wage...
Click to expand...

Which results in businesses moving their operations overseas for properly-priced labor.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap labor is not an option in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s _only_ true where Dumbocrats are in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the left is for increasing the minimum wage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which results in businesses moving their operations overseas for properly-priced labor.
Click to expand...

we can't compete on Cheap labor in the US; go ahead and automate.  we should be compensating Labor for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, anyway.


----------



## WillPower

miketx said:


> Queer heaven.



The land of fruits and nuts....


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> go ahead and automate.


Just like the left is no longer afraid to admit they are communists, they are also no longer afraid to admit that they want the economy to either collapse or be forced to eliminate the labor force through automation (which, of course, creates the government dependency that danny boi is longing for)


danielpalos said:


> we should be compensating Labor for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, anyway.


Oh...you mean the “natural rate” that you cannot provide? The rate that you have no idea what it is? You mean _that_ rate?


----------



## danielpalos

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; go ahead and automate.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; go ahead and automate.


Paying people not to work, doesn’t work. Furthermore, who is going to pay them? You? Nancy Pelosi? The government has not authority to redistribute wealth (no matter how much you wish they did).


----------



## Tax Man

California is a great state and place to work and make a living while being close to recreational areas. No place better in the USA.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California continues to spiral down into unprecedented misery in America. One can _always_ count on the left-wing ideology to unravel prosperity...

Residents of San Francisco are now documenting squalor of city's homelessness epidemic


----------



## Tax Man

California is the best place on earth except for self centered cons.

The blaze is such a joke.


----------



## P@triot

The person who captured the photo, perfectly captured the reality of the left. A bunch of uneducated, unsophisticated, animals.


> Full moon broad daylight. Not even homeless. Just had to go, and everyone else does it. *Zero* *civic* *pride*. *Zero* *accountability*. *Zero* *leaders*.


You’ve *never* seen conservatives act like this and you *never* will.

Residents of San Francisco are now documenting squalor of city's homelessness epidemic


----------



## task0778

Tax Man said:


> California is the best place on earth except for self centered cons.
> 
> The blaze is such a joke.



I didn't know all those middle-class people leaving CA were self-centered cons, who knew?   

Wondering how in the hell CA is going to pay all those massive pensions that they don't have the funding for.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> California is the best place on earth except for self centered cons. The blaze is such a joke.


The Blaze didn’t capture the photo or post it so social media, you dimwit. All they did was report on the reality. You’re a prime example of why someone should click on a link before commenting.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; go ahead and automate.
> 
> 
> 
> Paying people not to work, doesn’t work. Furthermore, who is going to pay them? You? Nancy Pelosi? The government has not authority to redistribute wealth (no matter how much you wish they did).
Click to expand...

Yes, it does; especially when our market based economy is still functioning.  A general tax could solve that problem. The right wing is clueless and Causeless.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Tax cut economics is income redistribution.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; go ahead and automate.
> 
> 
> 
> Paying people not to work, doesn’t work. Furthermore, who is going to pay them? You? Nancy Pelosi? The government has not authority to redistribute wealth (no matter how much you wish they did).
Click to expand...




task0778 said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the best place on earth except for self centered cons.
> 
> The blaze is such a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know all those middle-class people leaving CA were self-centered cons, who knew?
> 
> Wondering how in the hell CA is going to pay all those massive pensions that they don't have the funding for.
Click to expand...

raising the minimum wage will raise more tax money.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government has not authority to redistribute wealth (no matter how much you wish they did).
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cut economics is income redistribution.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! Snowflake, allowing people to keep what was already theirs is not “redistribution”. That makes zero sense (which is always the case with your idiotic posts). Why don’t you get a dictionary and look up all of these basic words _before_ commenting?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying people not to work, doesn’t work.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does; especially when our market based economy is still functioning.
Click to expand...

No nitwit, it doesn’t. This has been *proven* over and over already. Your ignorance is a serious problem.


> A plan that granted Finnish citizens a no questions asked universal basic income (UBI) is over. Finland has decided to end a first of its kind welfare experiment after only two years after the government turned down a request for extra funding from the Finnish social security agency. According to Time, Finland's unemployment rate reached a record high of 10% in 2017 sparking a new debate on welfare reform.


Those that are ignorant of history (_you_) are doomed to repeat it. I have now unequivocally proven every single one of your idiotic pipe dreams to be unsustainable. You want a $15 minimum wage - I posted a study from the University of Washington that showed that minimum wage workers went deeper into poverty due to loss of jobs and loss of hours to offset the artificial increase in labor costs. You want to be paid not to work - I posted a real world example of that being done in Finland and failing. You want to redistribute wealth - I posted many articles about how that collapsed the entire economy in Venezuela. You’ve posted nothing but ignorant wishes. I’ve countered with cold, hard, facts. The debate is over. Go home son.

Finland halts world's first universal 'basic income' and Bernie Sanders has a plan


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government has not authority to redistribute wealth (no matter how much you wish they did).
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cut economics is income redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! Snowflake, allowing people to keep what was already theirs is not “redistribution”. That makes zero sense (which is always the case with your idiotic posts). Why don’t you get a dictionary and look up all of these basic words _before_ commenting?
Click to expand...

Fundamentals matter under capitalism.  It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.  

The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.


Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.


danielpalos said:


> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.


Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
Click to expand...

Well then lets start removing welfare for corporations too.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Well then lets start removing welfare for corporations too.


I *agree* with you *100%*. That should have *never* happened. And frankly, I think every single damn corporation should pay it all back _with_ interest.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
Click to expand...

Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing embodies left-wing misery like the shit-hole state of California...

A real nightmare before Christmas: San Jose Christmas event includes Satanic tree display


----------



## danielpalos

we really just need a State Corps of Engineers to complement the federal Corps.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we really just need a State Corps of Engineers to complement the federal Corps.


Because a state corp of engineers will somehow eliminate failed left-wing polices?!?


----------



## P@triot

California is such a shit-hole. Gasoline is $1.89 in the conservative utopia that I am blessed to live in...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a State Corps of Engineers to complement the federal Corps.
> 
> 
> 
> Because a state corp of engineers will somehow eliminate failed left-wing polices?!?
Click to expand...

off the shelf plans for all of our favorite projects.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a State Corps of Engineers to complement the federal Corps.
> 
> 
> 
> Because a state corp of engineers will somehow eliminate failed left-wing polices?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> off the shelf plans for all of our favorite projects.
Click to expand...

You only have one favorite plan: failed communism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a State Corps of Engineers to complement the federal Corps.
> 
> 
> 
> Because a state corp of engineers will somehow eliminate failed left-wing polices?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> off the shelf plans for all of our favorite projects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only have one favorite plan: failed communism.
Click to expand...

new cities in more optimal locations, built in transportation hubs, empire state capacitor buildings; State Capitalism can pioneer the way with a State Corps of Engineers.  Simple engineering problems are merely a challenge for the golden State when Eureka is our State motto.


----------



## 22lcidw

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.


----------



## danielpalos

22lcidw said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
Click to expand...

California could use a State central bank, as well.


----------



## basquebromance

"Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour  --> 2015: 5 cosponsors in the Senate 56 cosponsors in the House 2019: 31 cosponsors in the Senate 181 cosponsors in the House 

 Real change never comes from the top on down. It always begins from the bottom up."


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



Tell my young daughter that.
She founded a $150 mm business and loves California.
Ever been to Pleasanton?
It's gorgeous, great schools.
But then you pontificate about places you have never lived in so what do we expect?


----------



## danielpalos

basquebromance said:


> "Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour  --> 2015: 5 cosponsors in the Senate 56 cosponsors in the House 2019: 31 cosponsors in the Senate 181 cosponsors in the House
> 
> Real change never comes from the top on down. It always begins from the bottom up."


I think the minimum wage cost of living adjustment should happen sooner rather than later, and let our State Board of Equalization find an equitable manner to equalize capitalists to help transition to the new equilibrium.


----------



## ph3iron

Timmy said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand .  People want to live in California .  Jobs pay more in cali . That's why housing prices are high.
Click to expand...


Problem with cheap Texas housing is you have to live around Texans. Lousy schools, uneducated people


----------



## task0778

22lcidw said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
Click to expand...


I guess I do not understand your point, if you don't back up your currency with gold and silver then what's the difference between Treasury Notes and Federal Reserve Notes?   And how does that save us anything?

Seems to me that you need some mechanism to control your monetary policy, times when you need to tighten up and other times when you need more liquidity.   How do you do that if we don't have the Fed?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> The state sure loves their sexual assaults and sexual offenders...
> 
> Another Groping Allegation Against 'Buttman' Affleck. Does This Spell Doom For 'Justice League'?


Try Mississippi, I think their porn viewing and female assault is higher than cal.
But that doesn't fit your made up mind I guess


----------



## The Original Tree

22lcidw said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
Click to expand...

*JFK was trying to do that very thing.*


----------



## task0778

ph3iron said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand .  People want to live in California .  Jobs pay more in cali . That's why housing prices are high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem with cheap Texas housing is you have to live around Texans. Lousy schools, uneducated people
Click to expand...


Strange isn't it, that so many people are coming TO Texas and leaving FROM California?   Middle and Upper-income people too.


----------



## The Original Tree

task0778 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I do not understand your point, if you don't back up your currency with gold and silver then what's the difference between Treasury Notes and Federal Reserve Notes?   And how does that save us anything?
> 
> Seems to me that you need some mechanism to control your monetary policy, times when you need to tighten up and other times when you need more liquidity.   How do you do that if we don't have the Fed?
Click to expand...


*The Federal Reserve Charges The American People Interests and Fees for using their Private Banking Notes....  i.e.  Debt Instruments.  Every Reserve Note you spend is actually a loan from The Federal Reserve to The American People.  It's not  actual currency.

No such thing would occur if we were to print Treasury Notes.*


----------



## task0778

The Original Tree said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I do not understand your point, if you don't back up your currency with gold and silver then what's the difference between Treasury Notes and Federal Reserve Notes?   And how does that save us anything?
> 
> Seems to me that you need some mechanism to control your monetary policy, times when you need to tighten up and other times when you need more liquidity.   How do you do that if we don't have the Fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve Charges The American People Interests and Fees for using their Private Banking Notes....  i.e.  Debt Instruments.
> 
> No such thing would occur if we were to print Treasury Notes.*
Click to expand...


Do you realize that whatever income the Fed gets is returned to the US Treasury?   And you didn't answer any of my questions.


----------



## ph3iron

task0778 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand .  People want to live in California .  Jobs pay more in cali . That's why housing prices are high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem with cheap Texas housing is you have to live around Texans. Lousy schools, uneducated people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange isn't it, that so many people are coming TO Texas and leaving FROM California?   Middle and Upper-income people too.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's $$


----------



## ph3iron

task0778 said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I do not understand your point, if you don't back up your currency with gold and silver then what's the difference between Treasury Notes and Federal Reserve Notes?   And how does that save us anything?
> 
> Seems to me that you need some mechanism to control your monetary policy, times when you need to tighten up and other times when you need more liquidity.   How do you do that if we don't have the Fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve Charges The American People Interests and Fees for using their Private Banking Notes....  i.e.  Debt Instruments.
> 
> No such thing would occur if we were to print Treasury Notes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that whatever income the Fed gets is returned to the US Treasury?   And you didn't answer any of my questions.
Click to expand...


Well, as they say, "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Great socialist benefits and indoctrination only second to religion"


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
Click to expand...

Still don't know the def of snowflake I see.
Original proslavery boys.
It's called google


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> California is such a shit-hole. Gasoline is $1.89 in the conservative utopia that I am blessed to live in...
> 
> View attachment 240518



Do you ever google anything?
I can't help it if you don't have the brains to afford to live in cal?
Note the preponderance of confederate states in the sexual abuse top ten

Louisiana


----------



## task0778

ph3iron said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I do not understand your point, if you don't back up your currency with gold and silver then what's the difference between Treasury Notes and Federal Reserve Notes?   And how does that save us anything?
> 
> Seems to me that you need some mechanism to control your monetary policy, times when you need to tighten up and other times when you need more liquidity.   How do you do that if we don't have the Fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve Charges The American People Interests and Fees for using their Private Banking Notes....  i.e.  Debt Instruments.
> 
> No such thing would occur if we were to print Treasury Notes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that whatever income the Fed gets is returned to the US Treasury?   And you didn't answer any of my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as they say, "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Great socialist benefits and indoctrination only second to religion"
Click to expand...


Insults and demagoguery will avail you nothing.   Apparently you are smart enough to be a total prick but not smart enough to defend what you wrote earlier.


----------



## Tax Man

The true embodiment of misery is texas and the rest of the southern states. Here in California I have true freedom and have a wonderful life in the bay area.


----------



## danielpalos

The Original Tree said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple income redistribution that favors the wealthiest at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the wealthy already have the money (that's why they are "wealthy"). The poor don't have the money (that's why they are "poor"). So a reduction in taxes simply takes less from the wealthy. It allows the wealthy to keep what was _already_ theirs. It's astounding that you don't know the definition of basic words.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution is no longer paying as much for Government and putting it on the Peoples' tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake....the _only_ reason a "tab" even exists is because of parasites like _you_. Stop demanding that society provide for you and there won't be a tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the Power to Tax to pay the Peoples' Debt.  The Richest don't want to pay for your right wing and alleged and unenumerated wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.  They must not be capitally worth it under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get rid of the federal reserve. You do not have to go back to gold and silver as a backing for dollars quickly. But put the printing of fiat currency in the hands of the United States treasury and owned by the people. So we would have Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. That would save us some coin to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I do not understand your point, if you don't back up your currency with gold and silver then what's the difference between Treasury Notes and Federal Reserve Notes?   And how does that save us anything?
> 
> Seems to me that you need some mechanism to control your monetary policy, times when you need to tighten up and other times when you need more liquidity.   How do you do that if we don't have the Fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve Charges The American People Interests and Fees for using their Private Banking Notes....  i.e.  Debt Instruments.  Every Reserve Note you spend is actually a loan from The Federal Reserve to The American People.  It's not  actual currency.
> 
> No such thing would occur if we were to print Treasury Notes.*
Click to expand...

all talk?  tax cut economics is simply financing government not actually producing a better economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> *Simple* *engineering* *problems* are merely a challenge for the golden State when Eureka is our State motto.


So the left is so inept, they can’t even handle “simple engineering problems”?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Simple* *engineering* *problems* are merely a challenge for the golden State when Eureka is our State motto.
> 
> 
> 
> So the left is so inept, they can’t even handle “simple engineering problems”?
Click to expand...

the right wing is so clueless and so Causeless, they believe anything they say and write.   the left is working on good and valid arguments.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the left is working on good and valid arguments.


Oh we know. While the right works on *solutions*, the left works on arguments (ie propaganda). That is why the right produces prosperity while the left produces poverty.

You continue to defeat your own arguments...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the left is working on good and valid arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh we know. While the right works on *solutions*, the left works on arguments (ie propaganda). That is why the right produces prosperity while the left produces poverty.
> 
> You continue to defeat your own arguments...
Click to expand...

What is your opinion regarding raising the minimum wage and abolish rent control?  

Along with equal protection of the law for the Poor, in any at-will employment State. 

Rent control provides no incentive to upgrade properties for modern times.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What is your opinion regarding raising the minimum wage


We’ve been over this many times. The minimum wage should *never* be raised. Ever. It should be set at $2.00 per hour and remain there for eternity.


danielpalos said:


> and abolish rent control?


There should be no “rent control”. The government has no right to tell a private citizen running a private business on private property, what they can charge.


----------



## danielpalos

what about raising the minimum so labor can afford market based rents.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> what about raising the minimum so labor can afford market based rents.


Rent will come down when labor can’t afford it. Stop advocating for the “supply side” economics you claim to denounce.


----------



## initforme

The problem is people will actually apply for minimum wage jobs.  If nobody applied then everyone would win.  But it will never happen . That being said minimum wage equals minimum effort.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about raising the minimum so labor can afford market based rents.
> 
> 
> 
> Rent will come down when labor can’t afford it. Stop advocating for the “supply side” economics you claim to denounce.
Click to expand...

how does that engender an upgrading boom?


----------



## danielpalos

initforme said:


> The problem is people will actually apply for minimum wage jobs.  If nobody applied then everyone would win.  But it will never happen . That being said minimum wage equals minimum effort.


California is raising their minimum wage to increase labor force participation.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. What a bunch of bat-shit crazies...

California State Senate Committee Bans Saying 'He' and 'She'


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> California is raising their minimum wage to increase labor force participation.


Increasing minimum wage drastically decreases “labor force participation”. It’s been proven. Please educate yourself before speaking.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about raising the minimum so labor can afford market based rents.
> 
> 
> 
> Rent will come down when labor can’t afford it. Stop advocating for the “supply side” economics you claim to denounce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how does that engender an *upgrading* boom?
Click to expand...

One doesn’t “upgrade” a “boom”, you illiterate buffoon. Just once I wish you would make a coherent post so there could be an intelligent discussion.


----------



## P@triot

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Simple* *engineering* *problems* are merely a challenge for the golden State when Eureka is our State motto.
> 
> 
> 
> So the left is so inept, they can’t even handle “simple engineering problems”?
Click to expand...

You still haven’t answered yet danielpalos. Why does the “Golden State” find “_simple_ engineering problems” so “challenging”? Those are your words - explain them. Is the left really that incompetent?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is raising their minimum wage to increase labor force participation.
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing minimum wage drastically decreases “labor force participation”. It’s been proven. Please educate yourself before speaking.
Click to expand...

San Francisco and Seattle have lower unemployment rates than the national average.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is raising their minimum wage to increase labor force participation.
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing minimum wage drastically decreases “labor force participation”. It’s been proven. Please educate yourself before speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Francisco and Seattle have lower unemployment rates than the national average.
Click to expand...

They also have exponentially lower hours than the national average. Congrats...you just made the poor, poorer. That’s what left-wing policy always does.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is raising their minimum wage to increase labor force participation.
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing minimum wage drastically decreases “labor force participation”. It’s been proven. Please educate yourself before speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Francisco and Seattle have lower unemployment rates than the national average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also have exponentially lower hours than the national average. Congrats...you just made the poor, poorer. That’s what left-wing policy always does.
Click to expand...

How can they have a lower unemployment rate and less hours?  A low unemployment rate means getting a second job and making more.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> How can they have a lower unemployment rate and less hours?  *A low unemployment rate means getting a second job *and making more.


You think a low unemployment rate means people are working two jobs? 

Snowflake...the unemployment rate looks at people who don’t have a job. Therefore, a person who has a job doesn’t change the rate if they get a second, third, or even fourth job.

You just illustrated yet again how unqualified you are to talk about economics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can they have a lower unemployment rate and less hours?  *A low unemployment rate means getting a second job *and making more.
> 
> 
> 
> You think a low unemployment rate means people are working two jobs?
> 
> Snowflake...the unemployment rate looks at people who don’t have a job. Therefore, a person who has a job doesn’t change the rate if they get a second, third, or even fourth job.
> 
> You just illustrated yet again how unqualified you are to talk about economics.
Click to expand...

a high unemployment rate means more people not finding work.  a low unemployment rate means more people finding work.

Capitalism works.  More people will seek employment with the higher minimum wage.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can they have a lower unemployment rate and less hours?  *A low unemployment rate means getting a second job *and making more.
> 
> 
> 
> You think a low unemployment rate means people are working two jobs?
> 
> Snowflake...the unemployment rate looks at people who don’t have a job. Therefore, a person who has a job doesn’t change the rate if they get a second, third, or even fourth job.
> 
> You just illustrated yet again how unqualified you are to talk about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a high unemployment rate means more people not finding work.  a low unemployment rate means more people finding work.
Click to expand...

Don’t try to pretend like you know what you’re talking about now. You just illustrated to the world how profoundly ignorant you are on basic economics.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...


> The board of trustees president for a California community college ended the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings, claiming the ritual was "steeped in expressions of nativism and white nationalism."


The left has become so extreme that it can’t even be quantified any more. Bat. Shit. Crazy.

California college trustee board drops Pledge of Allegiance over 'white nationalism'


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can they have a lower unemployment rate and less hours?  *A low unemployment rate means getting a second job *and making more.
> 
> 
> 
> You think a low unemployment rate means people are working two jobs?
> 
> Snowflake...the unemployment rate looks at people who don’t have a job. Therefore, a person who has a job doesn’t change the rate if they get a second, third, or even fourth job.
> 
> You just illustrated yet again how unqualified you are to talk about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a high unemployment rate means more people not finding work.  a low unemployment rate means more people finding work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t try to pretend like you know what you’re talking about now. You just illustrated to the world how profoundly ignorant you are on basic economics.
Click to expand...

capitalism works; higher pay means more people looking for work.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...
> 
> 
> 
> The board of trustees president for a California community college ended the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings, claiming the ritual was "steeped in expressions of nativism and white nationalism."
> 
> 
> 
> The left has become so extreme that it can’t even be quantified any more. Bat. Shit. Crazy.
> 
> California college trustee board drops Pledge of Allegiance over 'white nationalism'
Click to expand...

you need superior arguments to practice your right wing bigotry better.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> capitalism works; higher pay means more people looking for work.


It’s *not* “capitalism” when government interferes and artificially inflates labor costs. The board has grown tired of your antics, Paid Russian Troll. Move along.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...
> 
> 
> 
> The board of trustees president for a California community college ended the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings, claiming the ritual was "steeped in expressions of nativism and white nationalism."
> 
> 
> 
> The left has become so extreme that it can’t even be quantified any more. Bat. Shit. Crazy.
> 
> California college trustee board drops Pledge of Allegiance over 'white nationalism'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need superior arguments to practice your right wing bigotry better.
Click to expand...

I don’t need any “argument”. I just post facts and the reality causes you to become “triggered”. Probably because you realize your life is in danger if you don’t succeed in your propaganda mission. Comrade Putin doesn’t tolerate failure. I can understand your panic.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism works; higher pay means more people looking for work.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s *not* “capitalism” when government interferes and artificially inflates labor costs. The board has grown tired of your antics, Paid Russian Troll. Move along.
Click to expand...

higher pay engenders greater market participation.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> higher pay engenders greater market participation.


There is no such thing as "higher payers". They reduce staff and reduce hours to make sure they don't become "higher payers". That's been proven by results (published in left-wing studies). You lose. You know you lose. You're out of your league here. Try your Paid Russian Troll nonsense somewhere else.


----------



## P@triot

I love when little daniel uses words he doesn't even understand because he _thinks_ it will generate credibility for him with others.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California operates like a 3rd world nation thanks to idiotic left-wing thinking...


> Gnawing squirrels have brought stock trading to a halt more than once by chewing electricity lines and disrupting NASDAQ computers. Rodents also interrupted some operations at Los Angeles International Airport on Thanksgiving Day in 2015, briefly stopping elevators, baggage screening and other functions.


That shit-hole state will continue to spiral into collapse like Venezuela.

Cyber-sabotage, wildfires, weather—a web of threats to the power supply could leave Californians in the dark


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher pay engenders greater market participation.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "higher payers". They reduce staff and reduce hours to make sure they don't become "higher payers". That's been proven by results (published in left-wing studies). You lose. You know you lose. You're out of your league here. Try your Paid Russian Troll nonsense somewhere else.
Click to expand...

is capitalism only the short run equilibrium and socialism long term equilibrium?

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> I love when little daniel uses words he doesn't even understand because he _thinks_ it will generate credibility for him with others.


only the right wing never gets and have no valid arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California operates like a 3rd world nation thanks to idiotic left-wing thinking...
> 
> 
> 
> Gnawing squirrels have brought stock trading to a halt more than once by chewing electricity lines and disrupting NASDAQ computers. Rodents also interrupted some operations at Los Angeles International Airport on Thanksgiving Day in 2015, briefly stopping elevators, baggage screening and other functions.
> 
> 
> 
> That shit-hole state will continue to spiral into collapse like Venezuela.
> 
> Cyber-sabotage, wildfires, weather—a web of threats to the power supply could leave Californians in the dark
Click to expand...

sounds like tax cut economics is worthless.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> sounds like tax cut economics is worthless.


Like all of your posts!

California hasn’t had any “tax cuts” you stupid twat (and the federal government doesn’t pay for state power grids). Plus, revenues to the federal government hit *record* *highs* after the Trump tax cuts.

The problem is parasites such as yourself.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> is capitalism only the short run equilibrium and socialism long term equilibrium?


No.

Are your posts the short term ignorance and the long term stupidity? Yes.


----------



## danielpalos

i gainsay your contention with nothing but repeal.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in castrophic failure like ignorant left-wing policies...


> People are rarely arrested for vagrancy, aggressive panhandling, or going to the bathroom in front of people’s homes in San Francisco. In 2015, there were 60,491 complaints to police, but only 125 arrests.


The left’s absurd ideology ends in economic collapse, politcal collapse, and moral collapse _every_ time.

San Francisco's Liberal Policies Have Made It a Slum


----------



## Harry Dresden

P@triot said:


> I love when little daniel uses words he doesn't even understand because he _thinks_ it will generate credibility for him with others.


danny thinks ellis island is somewhere in Arizona....


----------



## deanrd

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


California is the richest state in the union. They give twice the money to the federal government that the next step richest state, Texas, does.


----------



## deanrd

P@triot said:


> Nothing ends in castrophic failure like ignorant left-wing policies...
> 
> 
> 
> People are rarely arrested for vagrancy, aggressive panhandling, or going to the bathroom in front of people’s homes in San Francisco. In 2015, there were 60,491 complaints to police, but only 125 arrests.
> 
> 
> 
> The left’s absurd ideology ends in economic collapse, politcal collapse, and moral collapse _every_ time.
> 
> San Francisco's Liberal Policies Have Made It a Slum
Click to expand...

 An article from Fox. No bias there!


----------



## P@triot

deanrd said:


> California is the richest state in the union.


Yeah...uh...California is literally the poorest state in the U.S. Ignorant left-wing policy has saddled them with *$1.3 trillion *as of 2015. I’m sure it is far worse now but no data is available.


----------



## P@triot

deanrd said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in castrophic failure like ignorant left-wing policies...
> 
> 
> 
> People are rarely arrested for vagrancy, aggressive panhandling, or going to the bathroom in front of people’s homes in San Francisco. In 2015, there were 60,491 complaints to police, but only 125 arrests.
> 
> 
> 
> The left’s absurd ideology ends in economic collapse, politcal collapse, and moral collapse _every_ time.
> 
> San Francisco's Liberal Policies Have Made It a Slum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An article from Fox. No bias there!
Click to expand...

Proof that leftists comment from a place of pure ignorance. That article was *not* from Fox. It was from the Daily Signal. They are not even affiliates. The Daily Signal is the media arm of the not-for-profit think tank, The Heritage Foundation (again - absolutely 0 affiliation with Fox News).


----------



## danielpalos

we could have a high speed coastal highway for transportation and commerce;
and a transparent one for tourism.

Walls are worthless compared to promoting the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

A Coastal Seaway not a useless wall!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we could have a high speed coastal highway for transportation and commerce;


Bwahahaha! No snowflake, you couldn’t. Ever radical left-wing California has given up on the idiotic pipe-dream...


> The Green New Deal hinges on, among other things, the U.S. becoming crisscrossed with high-speed railroads. But even California is admitting it can’t afford high-speed rail.


Time to grow up daniel. Stopping rooting for failed socialism and just go get a job.

California’s High-Speed Rail Failure Shows the Insanity of Green New Deal


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we could have a high speed coastal highway for transportation and commerce;


We don’t need any more commerce...we’re the “wealthiest nation in the world” according to you left-wing lunatics. What we need is secure borders to protect our sovereignty.

There’s a reason you’re so panicked about the wall, danny. You _know_ it will work.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Walls are worthless compared to promoting the general welfare.


Wait...walls promote the general welfare. You spend a lot of time whining about “infrastructure projects” (because you love to see the government spend other people’s money). Here you are in a thread you created about the need for “infrastructure”:


danielpalos said:


> We need to upgrade our infrastructure regardless.


Well daniel, the wall is a major infrastructure project that will create jobs. Just what the left-wing is _always_ calling for. Until it’s a Republican providing it. Then you lunatics do a 180° pivot on your own positions.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could have a high speed coastal highway for transportation and commerce;
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! No snowflake, you couldn’t. Ever radical left-wing California has given up on the idiotic pipe-dream...
> 
> 
> 
> The Green New Deal hinges on, among other things, the U.S. becoming crisscrossed with high-speed railroads. But even California is admitting it can’t afford high-speed rail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Time to grow up daniel. Stopping rooting for failed socialism and just go get a job.
> 
> California’s High-Speed Rail Failure Shows the Insanity of Green New Deal
Click to expand...

I am fantasizing a Seaway not a Roadway.  High Speed travel on the Seaway would be "straighter" and the tubular design could accommodate "center of gravity" issues with high speed travel if the circumference of the tube can also used for any turns at high speed.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls are worthless compared to promoting the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...walls promote the general welfare. You spend a lot of time whining about “infrastructure projects” (because you love to see the government spend other people’s money). Here you are in a thread you created about the need for “infrastructure”:
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to upgrade our infrastructure regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well daniel, the wall is a major infrastructure project that will create jobs. Just what the left-wing is _always_ calling for. Until it’s a Republican providing it. Then you lunatics do a 180° pivot on your own positions.
Click to expand...

A Coastal Seaway could be used for commerce and tourism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A Coastal Seaway *could* be used for commerce and tourism.


But a wall *will* be used to restore sanity, security, sovereignty, and prosperity.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Coastal Seaway *could* be used for commerce and tourism.
> 
> 
> 
> But a wall *will* be used to restore sanity, security, sovereignty, and prosperity.
Click to expand...

walls don't produce that; only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Coastal Seaway *could* be used for commerce and tourism.
> 
> 
> 
> But a wall *will* be used to restore sanity, security, sovereignty, and prosperity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> walls don't produce that; only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. That's exactly why _you_ hide behind them at your parent's house.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Coastal Seaway *could* be used for commerce and tourism.
> 
> 
> 
> But a wall *will* be used to restore sanity, security, sovereignty, and prosperity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> walls don't produce that; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do. That's exactly why _you_ hide behind them at your parent's house.
Click to expand...

fallacies of false Cause much?  special pleading is all that may be required.

We have a naturalization clause; we should not be losing money on border policy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> fallacies of false *C*ause much?


Fallacies of literacy, much?


danielpalos said:


> special pleading is all that may be required.


Special education is *definitely* required.


danielpalos said:


> We have a naturalization clause; we should not be losing money on border policy.


That "naturalization clause" is outlined as part of our political republic. It has nothing to do with our economic capitalism. This has been explained to you many times. If you're not creating enough to come up with new bullshit, then you should just give up. Repeating bullshit that's already been proven to be bullshit is immature.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> fallacies of false *C*ause much?
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacies of literacy, much?
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> special pleading is all that may be required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Special education is *definitely* required.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a naturalization clause; we should not be losing money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That "naturalization clause" is outlined as part of our political republic. It has nothing to do with our economic capitalism. This has been explained to you many times. If you're not creating enough to come up with new bullshit, then you should just give up. Repeating bullshit that's already been proven to be bullshit is immature.
Click to expand...

our militia clause explains one uniform rule of naturalization.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> our militia clause explains one uniform rule of naturalization.


Uh....*no* it doesn't. At all.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our militia clause explains one uniform rule of naturalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh....*no* it doesn't. At all.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  It is really really serious, or not; right wingers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our militia clause explains one uniform rule of naturalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh....*no* it doesn't. At all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  It is really really serious, or not; right wingers.
Click to expand...

No, _really_, it *doesn’t*. At all. You wouldn’t know because you’ve never actually read the U.S. Constitution (and it shows).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our militia clause explains one uniform rule of naturalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh....*no* it doesn't. At all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  It is really really serious, or not; right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, _really_, it *doesn’t*. At all. You wouldn’t know because you’ve never actually read the U.S. Constitution (and it shows).
Click to expand...

you don't know what you are talking about right winger.  appeals to ignorance only work when we can be all political talk.


----------



## P@triot

The people of the shit-hole state of Califrussia aren’t particularly big on free speech...

California high school senior criticizes her school on Twitter — now she can't walk in graduation


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hope state of California strikes again. They cannot even raise children properly...

California school district faces 'crisis' as students 'rage' without discipline


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...

California Police Blame State’s Sanctuary Policies for San Jose Slaying


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in poverty and misery like left-wing policy...

impoverished communities of people living in Winnebagos in LA | Daily Mail Online


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...


> Fed-up parents participate in a “Sexxx Ed Sit Out” to protest the state’s sex education curriculum, calling it pornographic, age-inappropriate, and “highly biased and medically inaccurate instruction.”


It just oozes the left-wing doctrine of lawlessness, promiscuity, economic collapse, and disease.

California Parents Object to New Sex Ed Program in Public Schools


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California continues the misery of the left-wing ideology...


> About 150,000 households in a state of 40 million people now pay nearly half of the total annual state income tax.


Punish the few very successful so the many parasites can mooch off of the few. A special kind of stupid that can only come from the left. So much for their mantra of “paying your fair share” when 39,850,000 pay little or *nothing* while 150,000 pay 50% of _everything_.

California's War on Middle Class


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...


> The herpes tracking app, "HerpAlert," is reporting a "massive" outbreak of the sexually transmitted disease in California, which they believe to be associated with the Coachella music festival.


Wherever leftists go, disease and crime is certain to follow (remember “Occupy Wall Street”???). This is what happens when one rejects God, morality, decency, and integrity while embracing selfishness, promiscuity, debauchery and atheism.

REPORT: Coachella Attendees Suffer 'Massive' Herpes Outbreak


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...






Failed left-wing policies can’t even keep basics like electricity going.


----------



## P@triot

*California governor forms group for homelessness solutions*

The shit-hope state of California strikes again.

*Step #1:* stop importing millions of illegal aliens in order to steal elections

California governor forms group for homelessness solutions


----------



## P@triot

Show me a city, state, or nation run by someone with a left-wing ideology and I’ll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time.

WaPo blames San Francisco's problems on capitalism — and gets ridiculed ruthlessly on social media


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hope state of California strikes again. Nothing but fecal matter and drug syringes as far as the eye can see. This is what left-wing policy does to a society. It causes nothing but poverty and misery among the people - who then turn to street drugs to escape the misery of liberalism.

San Francisco’s Quality-of-Life Toll


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California continues the misery of the left-wing ideology...

Filth from homeless camps is luring rats to L.A. City Hall, report says


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...

Mass Homelessness Exposes California’s Political Dysfunction


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. The left is desperate to sexualize young children...

California School Has “Condom Race” Where 10-Year-Old Girls Learn How to Put On Condoms | LifeNews.com


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. The people who have spent the past decade screaming about “separation of church and state” suddenly want the state controlling the church...


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. The left is desperate to sexualize young children...

California Public Schools Promote Polyamory for Preteens


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_.

City of Berkeley Bans Gendered Words Like ‘Manhole’ and ‘Manpower’ From Code Book


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

It looks like a 3rd world banana republic but it’s actually Sacramento. Another shit-hole city in the shit-hole state of progressive California. This is how left-wing policy ends...


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> It looks like a 3rd world banana republic but it’s actually Sacramento. Another shit-hole city in the shit-hole state of progressive California. This is how left-wing policy ends...
> 
> View attachment 276486


Meeeh those are Americans who are homeless. I will agree with you if you can prove that most homeless in California are from California. 

And btw calofornia is the most important state in the union:

Gives more money than it takes.
Provide most vegetables and fruits to the US.
Biggest economy  in the US and 5th in the world. 
Everything new comes from California. 
Entertainment comes from California. 
Californians are the number serving group in the armed forces. 
Best GOP president Reagan was from California 

And I can go on forever...

And most people that live here come from somewhere, and that's what makes this state great. 

Now talk to me about red states.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I will agree with you if you can prove that most homeless in California are from California.


Bwahahaha! Why do they have to be from California to suffer from the failed left-wing polices that California employs? Are people from other states magically immune to California’s laws when they live there?

You have to do better than that, son.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Gives more money than it takes.


Um...you mean *borrows* more money than it gives. $470 billion in debt. Embarrassing.

State of California Debt Clock


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Provide most vegetables and fruits to the US.


Wow...so it’s a massive land with perfect climate for crops. How is that in _any_ way a credit to progressives? Did California politicians somehow engineer climate control for their state?

Son, you have to do a lot better than this desperate nonsense.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> *Everything* *new* comes from California.


Really? That is AMAZING! You’d think at least _one_ thing “new” would come from Italy, or France, or Japan, or India.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Californians are the number serving group in the armed forces.


Well that’s a very Californian sentence at least! Not even remotely coherent.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> It looks like a 3rd world banana republic but it’s actually Sacramento. Another shit-hole city in the shit-hole state of progressive California. This is how left-wing policy ends...
> 
> View attachment 276486


Equal protection of the law in our at-will employment State is what we need.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will agree with you if you can prove that most homeless in California are from California.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! Why do they have to be from California to suffer from the failed left-wing polices that California employs? Are people from other states magically immune to California’s laws when they live there?
> 
> You have to do better than that, son.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide most vegetables and fruits to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...so it’s a massive land with perfect climate for crops. How is that in _any_ way a credit to progressives? Did California politicians somehow engineer climate control for their state?
> 
> Son, you have to do a lot better than this desperate nonsense.
Click to expand...

The fact you eat California fruits and vegetables...if you hate it it so much dont eat them.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Californians are the number serving group in the armed forces.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that’s a very Californian sentence at least! Not even remotely coherent.
Click to expand...

You got the point. California js the best state, biggest economy, most innovative, most productive...you can bash it all day long, it wont change those facts.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?


Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> You got the point. California js the best state, biggest economy, most innovative, most productive...you can bash it all day long, it wont change those facts.


And you can’t change the fact that the cities are filled with gangs, violence, crime, heroin needles, human feces, homeless, etc.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California continues the misery of the left-wing ideology...

California business owner says state's homeless crisis is forcing her to relocate


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California continues the misery of the left-wing ideology...
> 
> California business owner says state's homeless crisis is forcing her to relocate


Equal protection of the law can solve this dilemma.  

Employment is at the will of either party not just an employer.  

Labor should have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Labor should have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.


Labor already has “recourse”, you ignorant nitwit. It’s called a “savings account” and it’s called “finding a new job”.

Nobody has the right to be compensated for choosing to be unemployed. Nobody. Stop being a lazy parasite looking to mooch off of society, Daniel.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor should have recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> Labor already has “recourse”, you ignorant nitwit. It’s called a “savings account” and it’s called “finding a new job”.
> 
> Nobody has the right to be compensated for choosing to be unemployed. Nobody. Stop being a lazy parasite looking to mooch off of society, Daniel.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement for a work ethic from the Age of Iron in any at-will employment State.

that only happens in wage-slave States.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?
Click to expand...

Hawaii is far and expensive to get to. 
Louisiana oh well they are broke 
Arizona ? Might as well go to hell in this summer. 
Florida , hurricanes soon lot of Floridians will be homeless.
Texas , humidity is a nice weather? And who said they dont have homeless ?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the point. California js the best state, biggest economy, most innovative, most productive...you can bash it all day long, it wont change those facts.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can’t change the fact that the cities are filled with gangs, violence, crime, heroin needles, human feces, homeless, etc.
Click to expand...

They always have ...mafias, Irish mob, Russian mafia. The US has been a mess since the settlers stepped a foot in here. Killings, gangs, you name it...if we have MS13 we had white gangs who upped the game and became corporate and political thieves. Those are the biggest thieves...biggest of all is in the WH.


----------



## P@triot

This is what happens when progressives run a city...

A cancer patient got a parking ticket while he was in the hospital. The city of L.A. towed his vehicle and sold it.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Louisiana oh well they are broke
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha!!! California is the most broke state in the United States. $1.3 trillion in debt.

It is freaking hilarious to watch people on the wrong side of the facts flail around wildly trying to hit on an excuse they think will work for their failed position!


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Louisiana oh well they are broke
Click to expand...

By the way...if you’re homeless...why would you care if a state was “broke”? 

It is freaking hilarious to watch people on the wrong side of the facts flail around wildly trying to hit on an excuse they think will work for their failed position!


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas , humidity is a nice weather? And who said they dont have homeless?
Click to expand...

Well their streets aren’t overflowing with human feces and heroin needles so clearly they don’t have nearly the homeless problem that California has. But then again, Texas is run by successful conservative policy while California is run by failed progressive policy.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the point. California js the best state, biggest economy, most innovative, most productive...you can bash it all day long, it wont change those facts.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can’t change the fact that the cities are filled with gangs, violence, crime, heroin needles, human feces, homeless, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They always have ...mafias, Irish mob, Russian mafia.
Click to expand...

Yeah...left-wing cities always have. Conservative cities don’t. We take care of our business. We enforce the law instead of advocating to violate it like you people do.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Louisiana oh well they are broke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha!!! California is the most broke state in the United States. $1.3 trillion in debt.
> 
> It is freaking hilarious to watch people on the wrong side of the facts flail around wildly trying to hit on an excuse they think will work for their failed position!
Click to expand...

The bigger the economy the bigger the debt....most US states are in debt , heck even the US is in debt, so is Japan, France, Germany. Russia, almost everyone


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas , humidity is a nice weather? And who said they dont have homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well their streets aren’t overflowing with human feces and heroin needles so clearly they don’t have nearly the homeless problem that California has. But then again, Texas is run by successful conservative policy while California is run by failed progressive policy.
Click to expand...

Everyone wants to come California, because of the 3conomy, thr opportunities, the weather, the help you can get....you name it. I dont why it is hard for you to understand this. 
Those homeless guys most are not Californians, they are Americans from everywhere, and lot are veterans, what are you doing to help them ?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the point. California js the best state, biggest economy, most innovative, most productive...you can bash it all day long, it wont change those facts.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can’t change the fact that the cities are filled with gangs, violence, crime, heroin needles, human feces, homeless, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They always have ...mafias, Irish mob, Russian mafia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...left-wing cities always have. Conservative cities don’t. We take care of our business. We enforce the law instead of advocating to violate it like you people do.
Click to expand...

I'm no lefty, im independent that calls mostly the bullshit coming out of the right because it is too stupid.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> The bigger the economy the bigger the debt....


God damn that is some _serious_ left-wing “logic”


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Those homeless guys most are not Californians, they are Americans from everywhere, and lot are veterans, what are you doing to help them ?


Homeless people don’t travel to California...no matter how much you desperately want people to believe something so ignorant.

Additionally, even if that were true, where are the jobs for them?!? You lefties always *claim* that California is the “5th largest economy in the world”. So unemployment there should be about 1%. Which means there should be no homeless.

As far as what am I doing to help them? I’m fighting hard against the *failed* left-wing policies that made them homeless.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Killing more jobs which will result in more homelessness in their shit-hole state...

Newspapers in California are panicking over new liberal law about to pass — here's why


----------



## Terri4Trump

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



I live here, and that post is a 100% fact. I refuse to set foot into the Bay Area. Its horrible there


----------



## danielpalos

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that lot of homeless  come here primarily for the weather?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, etc. don’t have nice weather?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texas , humidity is a nice weather? And who said they dont have homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well their streets aren’t overflowing with human feces and heroin needles so clearly they don’t have nearly the homeless problem that California has. But then again, Texas is run by successful conservative policy while California is run by failed progressive policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone wants to come California, because of the 3conomy, thr opportunities, the weather, the help you can get....you name it. I dont why it is hard for you to understand this.
> Those homeless guys most are not Californians, they are Americans from everywhere, and lot are veterans, what are you doing to help them ?
Click to expand...

the left is for equal protection of our employment at will laws, for unemployment compensation so that anyone who is merely unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, can apply for unemployment compensation to get off the street.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Killing more jobs which will result in more homelessness in their shit-hole state...
> 
> Newspapers in California are panicking over new liberal law about to pass — here's why


i prefer recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Sexualizing children for their pedophile desires...

California Parents Protest Explicit Sex Ed, Gender Fluidity Lessons in Elementary Schools


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. It takes mins-boggling insanity to believe that tax payer’s somehow “owe” sexual deviants, cosmetic surgery. It takes even more insanity to believe you have the right to *force* _other_ states to share in that absurd view.

California’s Travel Bans Are the Lamest Virtue-Signaling Tactic Yet


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_.

Crime in California still rising after state law decriminalizes theft — and most thieves get away with it


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...

Who wants to leave California? Young voters can't afford housing, and conservatives feel alienated


----------



## The Original Tree

miketx said:


> Queer heaven.


*Pedophile Paradise*


----------



## The Original Tree

Timmy said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand .  People want to live in California .  Jobs pay more in cali . That's why housing prices are high.
Click to expand...

*Timmy:

Why have you devoted your life to being a liar?

You know that isn't going to bode well for you on Judgment Day.

74 Percent Of Conservative Californians Are Looking Into Leaving The State

53 percent of Californians want to leave the state, according to new survey*


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Imaging the idiocy it takes to believe that a person's mental illness and deviant sexual fantasies supersedes other's constitutional rights...

In California, the Right to Gender ‘Transition’ Is Threatening Religious Liberty


----------



## P@triot

Nothing lowers the bar and ends in catastrophic *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy....

Opinion | The Streets of San Francisco


----------



## P@triot

There is literally no end in sight. The shit-hole state of California strikes yet _again_...

EPA Lowers Boom on San Francisco for Violations of Clean Water Act


----------



## basquebromance

Today is historic.

California just signed into law the strongest renter protections in the NATION.

No one should be forced to choose between paying their rent or buying groceries. No one should live in fear of eviction.

It’s about time.


----------



## basquebromance

"Gasoline Prices in the State of California are MUCH HIGHER than anywhere else in the Nation ($2.50 vs. $4.50). I guess those very expensive and unsafe cars that they are mandating just aren’t doing the trick! Don’t worry California, relief is on the way. The State doesn’t get it!" - Trump


----------



## P@triot

basquebromance said:


> No one should be forced to choose between paying their rent or buying groceries.


Why not?


basquebromance said:


> No one should live in fear of eviction.


Says who? Where the _fuck_ is _that_ written?!?


----------



## P@triot

California is the _ultimate_ shit-hole. Paying over $4 per gallon in a booming economy, while the rest of the nation pays $2.

Pump Price Over $4 a Gallon Gives Californians Gas Pains


----------



## P@triot

basquebromance said:


> No one should be forced to choose between paying their rent or buying groceries.


No land owner should be unconstitutionally *forced* by government to provide their land and/or facilities at a price dictated by said government. Ever.


basquebromance said:


> No one should live in fear of eviction.


No one should live in fear that the government will control their land, their facilities, their livelihood  their prices, etc. No one.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. The left is fighting hard to allow criminal behavior.

6 Criminal Consequences of California’s Sanctuary for Illegal Immigrants


----------



## P@triot

In an era of unprecedented economic prosperity, the libtards have turned California into Venezuela...

California’s War on Citizenship


----------



## HenryBHough

Everyone seems to have forgotten that California is The Land of Fruits and Nuts......


----------



## P@triot

Good thing the shit-hole state of California has confiscated everyone's firearms. It's keeping citizens soooo "safe".

4 dead, 2 wounded in Southern California stabbings


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



Omg promiscuity!!
From our jealous patriot who posts bills bj!!!
Are you referring to my cal daughter who started a $150mm business under Obama.?
She loves California 
Maybe a few more brains than you and me?


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> Omg promiscuity!!
Click to expand...

So you're going to attempt to claim that intentionally giving someone HIV (which is attempted _murder_) is nothing more than "promiscuity"? Really? That's the hill you want to die on?!?


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> Omg promiscuity!!
Click to expand...

Not for nothing - but if you weren't so astoundingly ignorant - you would understand just how devastating promiscuity is to physical and mental health. Here, ask an adult to read this to you:


> ...higher numbers of non-marital sex partners are linked in turn to a wide variety of negative life outcomes, including increased rates of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased happiness.


It also results in increased suicide and more. But hey, keep promoting promiscuity and acting like it's a joke. Your poor daughter. I can't imagine what a train wreck you made her life into.

Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> Omg promiscuity!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for nothing - but if you weren't so astoundingly ignorant - you would understand just how devastating promiscuity is to physical and mental health. Here, ask an adult to read this to you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...higher numbers of non-marital sex partners are linked in turn to a wide variety of negative life outcomes, including increased rates of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also results in increased suicide and more. But hey, keep promoting promiscuity and acting like it's a joke. Your poor daughter. I can't imagine what a train wreck you made her life into.
> 
> Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts
Click to expand...

Ah, the Heritage Foundation.
One of your Blaze sources??
You believe their opinion?
You really think most have multiple partners??
Lucky them
Don't you ever read or post  non right wing sites??
Pity you seem to be SO 
Sex starved.
It's quite pleasure able actually


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Pity you seem to be SO Sex starved.
> It's quite pleasure able actually


Yeah...nothing says “pleasure” like grotesque STD’s, depression, suicide, etc. 

You’re the _epitome_ of a leftist. Ignorant. Illiterate. Immature.


----------



## P@triot

The left turns flourishing cities, states, and nations into third-world shit-holes...

San Francisco resembles a horror movie


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> The left turns flourishing cities, states, and nations into third-world shit-holes...
> 
> San Francisco resembles a horror movie


I guess Alabama is a bigger shithole?
Way more crime than cal.
More uppity leftist nixxers?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> Omg promiscuity!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for nothing - but if you weren't so astoundingly ignorant - you would understand just how devastating promiscuity is to physical and mental health. Here, ask an adult to read this to you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...higher numbers of non-marital sex partners are linked in turn to a wide variety of negative life outcomes, including increased rates of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also results in increased suicide and more. But hey, keep promoting promiscuity and acting like it's a joke. Your poor daughter. I can't imagine what a train wreck you made her life into.
> 
> Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts
Click to expand...


Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin
And worships our vagina grabber?
My problem was I couldn't find enough promiscuous birds to mess around with.
My daughter? Big business owner, once  married, 2 great kids.
The other a state director of mental health, neurology student kid.
Your kids?
I wonder how many promiscuous kids have a single parent?


----------



## ph3iron

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> Omg promiscuity!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for nothing - but if you weren't so astoundingly ignorant - you would understand just how devastating promiscuity is to physical and mental health. Here, ask an adult to read this to you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...higher numbers of non-marital sex partners are linked in turn to a wide variety of negative life outcomes, including increased rates of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also results in increased suicide and more. But hey, keep promoting promiscuity and acting like it's a joke. Your poor daughter. I can't imagine what a train wreck you made her life into.
> 
> Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
> 11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin
> And worships our vagina grabber?
> My problem was I couldn't find enough promiscuous birds to mess around with.
> My daughter? Big business owner, once  married, 2 great kids.
> The other a state director of mental health, neurology student kid.
> Your kids?
> I wonder how many promiscuous kids have a single parent?[/QUOT https://m.ranker.com/list/facts-about-benjamin-franklin/katia-kley
> And working in an abused women's shelter I'm more negative against the rubes who beat them
Click to expand...


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity you seem to be SO Sex starved.
> It's quite pleasure able actually
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...nothing says “pleasure” like grotesque STD’s, depression, suicide, etc.
> 
> You’re the _epitome_ of a leftist. Ignorant. Illiterate. Immature.
Click to expand...

Nice insult as usual.
Illiterate? At least I know that liberal comes from Latin and snowflake was our pro slavery white boys
No idea of the good I do with abused women.
I assume you do zero and just whine The Blaze?
As usual, a post to gratify our patriots nether regions.
I presumed screwing around wasn't the only factor, pulled out of the lit by sex starved old white farts.
Here's probably a more important reason.
Childhood Adversity Is Linked with Risky Health Behaviors and Negative Life Outcomes
Hope it helps


----------



## ph3iron

ph3iron said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> Omg promiscuity!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for nothing - but if you weren't so astoundingly ignorant - you would understand just how devastating promiscuity is to physical and mental health. Here, ask an adult to read this to you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...higher numbers of non-marital sex partners are linked in turn to a wide variety of negative life outcomes, including increased rates of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also results in increased suicide and more. But hey, keep promoting promiscuity and acting like it's a joke. Your poor daughter. I can't imagine what a train wreck you made her life into.
> 
> Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
> 11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin
> And worships our vagina grabber?
> My problem was I couldn't find enough promiscuous birds to mess around with.
> My daughter? Big business owner, once  married, 2 great kids.
> The other a state director of mental health, neurology student kid.
> Your kids?
> I wonder how many promiscuous kids have a single parent?[/QUOT https://m.ranker.com/list/facts-about-benjamin-franklin/katia-kley
> And working in an abused women's shelter I'm more negative against the rubes who beat them
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And a little on our sunshine patriots hero as he's so offended about promiscuity
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...es-donald-trump-bragging-about-sexual-assault
The one I like is the reason he cheats on a pregnant wife - their vaginas are distorted by childbearing.
And his lawyer did say a husband can't rape his wife.
Agree sunshine?


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I guess Alabama is a bigger shithole?


You would _guess_ *wrong*. 


ph3iron said:


> Way more crime than cal.


Bwahahahaha! You can tell you are racist as hell because that lie isn't even remotely believable. California has more crime in an hour than Alabama has in a decade. Shit, just the fact that you allow millions of illegals to come into the country through California, and then stay there, puts you years behind Alabama in terms of crime, dummy.


ph3iron said:


> More uppity leftist nixxers?


Typical racist leftist!


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> *Illiterate*? At least I know that liberal comes from Latin and snowflake *was our* pro slavery white boys


The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife. 

(Psst...Ph3iron...that would be "snowflake*s* *were* our pro slavery white boys")


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
> 11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin


Even if your propaganda there were true...you do realize that was like 300 years ago. New data and information has come to light now. They didn't understand the psychological risks associated with promiscuous behavior back then. Additionally, AIDS didn't even _exist_ back then.

Oh shit...I forgot...the left is the party of denying and ignoring science. My bad.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> No idea of the good I do with abused women.



What the fuck does that have to do with _anything_ we are discussing?
Women are only able to be abused because people like you insist on disarming them
Any "good" you claim to do doesn't offset the horrific damage you do to this nation with your failed left-wing ideology


----------



## P@triot

California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. They can't even keep the power on. If it wasn't for conservatives there and in other states carrying that shit-hole, you wouldn't even be able to distinguish it from Venezuela or Cuba.

California’s Disastrous State Illustrates Limits of Progressivism


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea of the good I do with abused women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does that have to do with _anything_ we are discussing?
> Women are only able to be abused because people like you insist on disarming them
> Any "good" you claim to do doesn't offset the horrific damage you do to this nation with your failed left-wing ideology
Click to expand...

Merry Xmas to you too darlin.
1. I thought you were being sympathetic to women and yet have the biggest womanizer Ben as your moniker. And worship the vagina grabber.
Irony?
2. Who wants to disarm women?. Give them a tank in their garage if they want them. 
3. Left wing?
 Haven't I told you several times I'm a millionaire corporate drug guy who never voted for a dem in my life? I know which side my bread is buttered as they say.
Keep being nice to people!!


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
> 11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your propaganda there were true...you do realize that was like 300 years ago. New data and information has come to light now. They didn't understand the psychological risks associated with promiscuous behavior back then. Additionally, AIDS didn't even _exist_ back then.
> 
> Oh shit...I forgot...the left is the party of denying and ignoring science. My bad.
Click to expand...


Nice essential foul mouth as usual.
My bad?
Very current.
Great, screwing around with 15 yr olds was ok 300 years ago and not now?
I guess Ben was ok wanting to ban German immigrants too?
"Swarthy, can't speak our language and are taking our jobs". Sound familiar?
Of course crazy behavior is dangerous.
Just trying to point out there are other bad reasons, like one parent families.
You really should try to  expand your reading past gateway and blaze


----------



## Likkmee

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
> 11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your propaganda there were true...you do realize that was like 300 years ago. New data and information has come to light now. They didn't understand the psychological risks associated with promiscuous behavior back then. Additionally, AIDS didn't even _exist_ back then.
> 
> Oh shit...I forgot...the left is the party of denying and ignoring science. My bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, They didn't read the Bible much back then either


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Illiterate*? At least I know that liberal comes from Latin and snowflake *was our* pro slavery white boys
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife.
> 
> (Psst...Ph3iron...that would be "snowflake*s* *were* our pro slavery white boys")
Click to expand...

Just trying to educate you.
At least you now know where it came from.
Now it's the knees news def I guess.
Still white boy zero college rubes though
USA guy "they say we don't get irony"
Euro "apparently"
Think about it


----------



## Rustic

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


I think most people probably would rather live in Russia been crazy Cali... lol


----------



## Rustic

Crazy Cali needs to given back to Mexico.... where it belongs


----------



## ph3iron

Likkmee said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
> 11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your propaganda there were true...you do realize that was like 300 years ago. New data and information has come to light now. They didn't understand the psychological risks associated with promiscuous behavior back then. Additionally, AIDS didn't even _exist_ back then.
> 
> Oh shit...I forgot...the left is the party of denying and ignoring science. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, They didn't read the Bible much back then either
Click to expand...

Thank god!!


P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea of the good I do with abused women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does that have to do with _anything_ we are discussing?
> Women are only able to be abused because people like you insist on disarming them
> Any "good" you claim to do doesn't offset the horrific damage you do to this nation with your failed left-wing ideology
Click to expand...




Rustic said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people probably would rather live in Russia been crazy Cali... lol
Click to expand...

I'll tell my multi millionaire cal daughter.
She loves it, went to Alabama on business and couldn't get out fast enough.
"Bunch of lynching rubes"


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, coming from a sunshine patriot who proudly has our biggest sex fiend Ben as a moniker?
> 11 Gross Facts About The Surprisingly Prolific Sex Life of Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your propaganda there were true...you do realize that was like 300 years ago. New data and information has come to light now. They didn't understand the psychological risks associated with promiscuous behavior back then. Additionally, AIDS didn't even _exist_ back then.
> 
> Oh shit...I forgot...the left is the party of denying and ignoring science. My bad.
Click to expand...

Yup, heard of global warming?
What does NASA know?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. They can't even keep the power on. If it wasn't for conservatives there and in other states carrying that shit-hole, you wouldn't even be able to distinguish it from Venezuela or Cuba.
> 
> California’s Disastrous State Illustrates Limits of Progressivism


Just when I thought Blaze, gateway pundit was the limit of your reading.
Now we have Heritage and caller.
Nothing like both sides.
Knees news founder was right.
"We don't report news, just reemphasise to our readers what they already believe"
See the  doc on roger? Banned viewing for old white conservative fart's?


----------



## Esmeralda

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


This is asinine. Verbal vomit from an ignorant, low level thinker with a grudge, no understanding of history, and no world view.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Haven't I told you several times I'm a millionaire corporate drug guy who never voted for a dem in my life?


Um...no. No you haven't. Instead, you've always said that your daughter was the millionaire.

I'm not going to lie, I don't believe either of your stories. No way in hell you could be a "corporate millionaire" based on the way you post. Poor grammar. Poor sentence structure.

Just doesn't seem plausible. Throw in your wailing against conservative policy and your devotion to left-wing policy, and - well - it just seems like you're a typical leftist lying about _everything_.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Keep being nice to people!!


Amen! I always wonder why the left insists on being violent and cruel to people (when they have large numbers, of course).


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I guess Ben was ok wanting to ban German immigrants too?


Well, we know that Woodrow Wilson (D) was ok with trying to eliminate blacks and that FDR (D) was ok throwing Japanese-Americans in internment camps. And both of those were in the 20th century!


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Illiterate*? At least I know that liberal comes from Latin and snowflake *was our* pro slavery white boys
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife.
> 
> (Psst...Ph3iron...that would be "snowflake*s* *were* our pro slavery white boys")
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just trying to educate you.
Click to expand...

See what I mean? Not likely a (and I quote) "millionaire corporate guy" would say "was our" in a sentence like you just did.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Illiterate*? At least I know that liberal comes from Latin and snowflake *was our* pro slavery white boys
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife.
> 
> (Psst...Ph3iron...that would be "snowflake*s* *were* our pro slavery white boys")
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just trying to educate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean? Not likely a (and I quote) "millionaire corporate guy" would say "was our" in a sentence like you just did.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I'm a science guy.
Really How do you know?
Pal around with millionaire corporate guys?
I do.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Ben was ok wanting to ban German immigrants too?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we know that Woodrow Wilson (D) was ok with trying to eliminate blacks and that FDR (D) was ok throwing Japanese-Americans in internment camps. And both of those were in the 20th century!
Click to expand...

So you still proudly have him in your moniker?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't I told you several times I'm a millionaire corporate drug guy who never voted for a dem in my life?
> 
> 
> 
> Um...no. No you haven't. Instead, you've always said that your daughter was the millionaire.
> 
> I'm not going to lie, I don't believe either of your stories. No way in hell you could be a "corporate millionaire" based on the way you post. Poor grammar. Poor sentence structure.
> 
> Just doesn't seem plausible. Throw in your wailing against conservative policy and your devotion to left-wing policy, and - well - it just seems like you're a typical leftist lying about _everything_.
Click to expand...


Can you document which policy I have wailed against?
What I have lied about?
Actual text please
I suspect you don't know what an external examiner is.
How do I communicate with a guy who quotes from the blaze, daily caller, 
Gateway pundit, heritage foundation, knees news?
Might I suggest The Indian Times? the Telegraph?
Both right wing papers
I try to tell you my corporate friends are all liberals.
But then they have education and know the meaning of liberal.
Liber, free, for the individual and small gov.
As for my millions, I've got mine, screw the rest.
Isn't that the good old American way?
Glad you appreciate my daughter, she's in Maui right now


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in your wailing against conservative policy and your devotion to left-wing policy, and - well - it just seems like you're a typical leftist lying about _everything_.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you document which policy I have wailed against?
Click to expand...

The right to keep and bear arms...


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. A farmer can’t even plant _wheat_ in that shit-hole state.

Feds Sue California Farmer for Growing Wheat


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in your wailing against conservative policy and your devotion to left-wing policy, and - well - it just seems like you're a typical leftist lying about _everything_.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you document which policy I have wailed against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms...
Click to expand...

Wrong again.
My best friends are hunters


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in your wailing against conservative policy and your devotion to left-wing policy, and - well - it just seems like you're a typical leftist lying about _everything_.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you document which policy I have wailed against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms...
Click to expand...

Can you post the link where I said I'm against?
Or is it your OPINION?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. A farmer can’t even plant _wheat_ in that shit-hole state.
> 
> Feds Sue California Farmer for Growing Wheat


Nice foul mouth.
Do you know how to respond w/o a stupid insult?
Essential every post?
Mm my millionaire cal daughter loves cal.
I presume you don't live there?
Just regurgitate knees news / Blaze crap in the SF streets etc?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. A farmer can’t even plant _wheat_ in that shit-hole state.
> 
> Feds Sue California Farmer for Growing Wheat


Wow daily signal!!!
Going up in the world from The Blaze?
Gateway pundit next??
You really have to quit reading these commie sites!!


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> My best friends are hunters


Yeah, we know. And you were a pharmaceutical "executive". And your daughter is a "billionaire".

Meanwhile, the real truth (based on your atrocious spelling and poor grammar) is that you're a 24 year old high school dropout living in mommy's basement.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Mm my millionaire cal daughter loves cal.


That tragically hilarious part is that a million dollars buys her a pitiful 1,200 sq. ft. home from 1940 on 1/10th acre of land.

Where I live, a million dollars would buy me a 12,000 sq. ft. home on 60 acres of land. But I don't live in the shit-hole state of California, so...


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> My best friends are hunters
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we know. And you were a pharmaceutical "executive". And your daughter is a "billionaire".
> 
> Meanwhile, the real truth (based on your atrocious spelling and poor grammar) is that you're a 24 year old high school dropout living in mommy's basement.
Click to expand...

Apologies, wrong again.
How's the blaze doing?


----------



## ph3iron

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> My best friends are hunters
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we know. And you were a pharmaceutical "executive". And your daughter is a "billionaire".
> 
> Meanwhile, the real truth (based on your atrocious spelling and poor grammar) is that you're a 24 year old high school dropout living in mommy's basement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apologies, wrong again.
> How's the blaze doing?
Click to expand...

Daughters a self made millionaire and in her 40s actually
Please list my bad spelling and grammar.
Like you, I always like to be corrected
Too fat fingers sometimes
Merry Xmas darlin


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mm my millionaire cal daughter loves cal.
> 
> 
> 
> That tragically hilarious part is that a million dollars buys her a pitiful 1,200 sq. ft. home from 1940 on 1/10th acre of land.
> 
> Where I live, a million dollars would buy me a 12,000 sq. ft. home on 60 acres of land. But I don't live in the shit-hole state of California, so...
Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea of Pleasanton prices.
Where do you live?
West Virginia? Mississippi?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in your wailing against conservative policy and your devotion to left-wing policy, and - well - it just seems like you're a typical leftist lying about _everything_.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you document which policy I have wailed against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms...
Click to expand...

No comment on the recent base knife attacks??
They are very fatal


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mm my millionaire cal daughter loves cal.
> 
> 
> 
> That tragically hilarious part is that a million dollars buys her a pitiful 1,200 sq. ft. home from 1940 on 1/10th acre of land.
> 
> Where I live, a million dollars would buy me a 12,000 sq. ft. home on 60 acres of land. But I don't live in the shit-hole state of California, so...
Click to expand...

But who wants to live in Alabama?
Can't resist the 2 nd grade insult as usual.
Try posting w/o the foul mouth.
It's possible, all you need is a college debate experience.
You blab, you lose


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...

California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill


----------



## toobfreak

P@triot said:


> *California embodies left-wing misery*



I disagree.  I think California is the *fountain well* from which all Left-misery springs forth. They are the head of the dragon.  After Trump is reelected, I hope they regain the House too and Trump and the GOP pulls out all the stops and simply hammers the living shit out of the state of California.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That tragically hilarious part is that a million dollars buys her a pitiful 1,200 sq. ft. home from 1940 on 1/10th acre of land.
> 
> Where I live, a million dollars would buy me a 12,000 sq. ft. home on 60 acres of land. But I don't live in the shit-hole state of California, so...
> 
> 
> 
> But who wants to live in Alabama?
Click to expand...

Psst...I don’t live in Alabama, snowflake. But that being said, any rational person would rather live in Alabama over shit-hole California.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Where do you live? West Virginia? Mississippi?


No and No. You’ve eliminated 3 states so far! Keep trying.


----------



## Thinker101

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you live? West Virginia? Mississippi?
> 
> 
> 
> No and No. You’ve eliminated 3 states so far! Keep trying.
Click to expand...


Yep, only 54 to go.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


CA is #1 in poverty rate, taxes, debt and in the bottom in education


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Taking low-wage jobs and turning them into no wage jobs via the failed left-wing ideology...

Sacramento Restaurants Closing Due To Imminent Minimum Wage Increase


----------



## Terri4Trump

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



Totally correct


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That tragically hilarious part is that a million dollars buys her a pitiful 1,200 sq. ft. home from 1940 on 1/10th acre of land.
> 
> Where I live, a million dollars would buy me a 12,000 sq. ft. home on 60 acres of land. But I don't live in the shit-hole state of California, so...
> 
> 
> 
> But who wants to live in Alabama?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Psst...I don’t live in Alabama, snowflake. But that being said, any rational person would rather live in Alabama over shit-hole California.
Click to expand...

Still too ignorant to know the def of snowflake?
So my cal daughter who started $150mm business under Obama loves it.
I guess you don't live where she does.
Cal is a bit bigger than downtown streets you know


----------



## ph3iron

Terri4Trump said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally correct
Click to expand...

You live there vagina grabber?


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you live? West Virginia? Mississippi?
> 
> 
> 
> No and No. You’ve eliminated 3 states so far! Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, only 54 to go.
Click to expand...

It's called irony darlin.
USA "people say we don't get irony"
Euro "apparently"
Think about it


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you live? West Virginia? Mississippi?
> 
> 
> 
> No and No. You’ve eliminated 3 states so far! Keep trying.
Click to expand...

Pa?
Pittsburg and philly with Mississippi in the middle?


----------



## ph3iron

toobfreak said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *California embodies left-wing misery*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I think California is the *fountain well* from which all Left-misery springs forth. They are the head of the dragon.  After Trump is reelected, I hope they regain the House too and Trump and the GOP pulls out all the stops and simply hammers the living shit out of the state of California.
Click to expand...

Nice Christian trumpanzee?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill


Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
Just spewing hate


----------



## Thinker101

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
> Just spewing hate
Click to expand...


Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
> Just spewing hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
Call my daughter.
She might give you a job.


----------



## Thinker101

ph3iron said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
> Just spewing hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
> Call my daughter.
> She might give you a job.
Click to expand...


Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,


----------



## ph3iron

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> CA is #1 in poverty rate, taxes, debt and in the bottom in education
Click to expand...

I thought Mississippi in E'd?


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
> Just spewing hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
> Call my daughter.
> She might give you a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,
Click to expand...

So where is bill and where are you?
Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill


Can't resist the shithole comment can we??!!
College is still available?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill


Still spending your SS time scouring for one off articles that fit your made up mind.?
What happened to the dreaded uk knife attacks?
Way more dangerous than our 40000 gun deaths
May I suggest college to quieten your foul mouth?


----------



## Thinker101

ph3iron said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Determined to make every citizen unemployed and dependent on government for even their most basic needs...
> 
> California Freelancers Suffer From Totally Predictable 'Unintended Consequences' of Gig Worker Protection Bill
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
> Just spewing hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
> Call my daughter.
> She might give you a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is bill and where are you?
> Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?
Click to expand...


Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
> Just spewing hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
> Call my daughter.
> She might give you a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is bill and where are you?
> Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
> Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.
Click to expand...

Don't know, !! 
Figured, too dumb to know the average rube takes out 40% more than they put in.
And is SO opinionated.


----------



## Thinker101

ph3iron said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
> Call my daughter.
> She might give you a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is bill and where are you?
> Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
> Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know, !!
> Figured, too dumb to know the average rube takes out 40% more than they put in.
> And is SO opinionated.
Click to expand...


Yep, too bad for a loser like you.


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
> Call my daughter.
> She might give you a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is bill and where are you?
> Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
> Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know, !!
> Figured, too dumb to know the average rube takes out 40% more than they put in.
> And is SO opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, too bad for a loser like you.
Click to expand...


Merry Xmas to you too darlin as I sit on the balcony of my vacation home looking at the ocean.
Enjoy Mississippi


----------



## Thinker101

ph3iron said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,
> 
> 
> 
> So where is bill and where are you?
> Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
> Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know, !!
> Figured, too dumb to know the average rube takes out 40% more than they put in.
> And is SO opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, too bad for a loser like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merry Xmas to you too darlin as I sit on the balcony of my vacation home looking at the ocean.
> Enjoy Mississippi
Click to expand...


Surprise, that ain't the ocean, that's piss running through the gutter.
BTW, I already told you I live in Calif, you must have some serious ADD going on there.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> So my cal daughter who started $150mm business under Obama loves it.


She started a $150 millimeter business? 

Yeah...that sounds about right.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal. Just spewing hate


Why would they? Intelligent people don’t move to shit-holes.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> So my cal daughter who started $150mm business under Obama loves it.
> 
> 
> 
> She started a $150 millimeter business?
> 
> Yeah...that sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Hohoho and I thought you hadn't been to college.
So you have never lived in cal but can spew?
The mm have bought her a bunch of vacation homes


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is bill and where are you?
> Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
> Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know, !!
> Figured, too dumb to know the average rube takes out 40% more than they put in.
> And is SO opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, too bad for a loser like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merry Xmas to you too darlin as I sit on the balcony of my vacation home looking at the ocean.
> Enjoy Mississippi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprise, that ain't the ocean, that's piss running through the gutter.
> BTW, I already told you I live in Calif, you must have some serious ADD going on there.
Click to expand...


Nice foul mouth.
Dead giveaway for zero college.
I was talking my  east coat darlin
You can't live in my daughters Pleasanton, beautiful place.
Where in cal do you live?
With other loser rubes?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal. Just spewing hate
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they? Intelligent people don’t move to shit-holes.
Click to expand...


Says our trumpanzee who never lived in cal and doesn't believe the cons divorce papers.
Some kind of commie deep state??!
(I assume you haven't read them, just swallow knees news?)


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious, non of the trumpanzees actually live in cal.
> Just spewing hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hilarious, some of us do live in this shithole...but will be moving, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not smart enough to get a well paying job?
> Call my daughter.
> She might give you a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need a job...you may want to contact Bill Clinton he's always looking for a job,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is bill and where are you?
> Sucking off your commie SS Medicare VA ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
> Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.
Click to expand...

Not enough rube.
Your taking more than you put in


----------



## Thinker101

ph3iron said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care where Bill is.
> Yep, sucking off SS and Medicare, ya know, the one's I paid into.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, !!
> Figured, too dumb to know the average rube takes out 40% more than they put in.
> And is SO opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, too bad for a loser like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merry Xmas to you too darlin as I sit on the balcony of my vacation home looking at the ocean.
> Enjoy Mississippi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprise, that ain't the ocean, that's piss running through the gutter.
> BTW, I already told you I live in Calif, you must have some serious ADD going on there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> I was talking my  east coat darlin
> You can't live in my daughters Pleasanton, beautiful place.
> Where in cal do you live?
> With other loser rubes?
Click to expand...


East coat...don't know where the hell that is.  If you mean east coast, they're not well known for beaches, way too much sewage in the water.  Pleasanton, nice place if there's no wind from Frisco, that aroma carries for miles.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> So you have never lived in cal but can spew?


So you have *never* been shot but you can “spew” about firearms?!?  _Oops_...


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have never lived in cal but can spew?
> 
> 
> 
> So you have *never* been shot but you can “spew” about firearms?!?  _Oops_...
Click to expand...

Firearms?
Thanks for confirming you never lived in Pleasanton


----------



## ph3iron

Thinker101 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, !!
> Figured, too dumb to know the average rube takes out 40% more than they put in.
> And is SO opinionated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, too bad for a loser like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merry Xmas to you too darlin as I sit on the balcony of my vacation home looking at the ocean.
> Enjoy Mississippi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprise, that ain't the ocean, that's piss running through the gutter.
> BTW, I already told you I live in Calif, you must have some serious ADD going on there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice foul mouth.
> Dead giveaway for zero college.
> I was talking my  east coat darlin
> You can't live in my daughters Pleasanton, beautiful place.
> Where in cal do you live?
> With other loser rubes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> East coat...don't know where the hell that is.  If you mean east coast, they're not well known for beaches, way too much sewage in the water.  Pleasanton, nice place if there's no wind from Frisco, that aroma carries for miles.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming you never lived anywhere near Pleasanton.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California is at it again. Refusing to enforce basic laws like some third-world banana republic.

San Francisco’s New DA: Public Urination ‘Will Not Be Prosecuted’


----------



## P@triot

California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States...

Here’s How Bad San Francisco’s Poop Problem Got in 2019


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...

A Higher Minimum Wage Fails in California


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California is at it again. Refusing to enforce basic laws like some third-world banana republic.

Just two days on the job, San Fran's new socialist DA fires 7 tough-on-crime prosecutors


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California is at it again. Poverty, filth, and misery like some third-world banana republic.

Tents, Homelessness, and Misery: 9 Things I Saw in San Francisco


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...

2 California Moms Sound Alarm About Lewd Sex Ed Coming to Schools


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...

They've Lost Their Minds in San Francisco


----------



## EvilCat Breath

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in cali
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how many Mexican families can be stuffed in that little house?  Probably 5.


----------



## P@triot

Leave it to the shit-hole state of California to elect a DA who worked for Hugo fucking Chavéz 

San Francisco's DA Touts Progressive Ambitions for Already Troubled City


----------



## EvilCat Breath

P@triot said:


> Leave it to the shit-hole state of California to elect a DA who worked for Hugo fucking Chavéz
> 
> San Francisco's DA Touts Progressive Ambitions for Already Troubled City


He is a truly evil man.  He is destroying San Francisco.  Ice agents should just let the city fall.   Let it become one big penal colony.


----------



## ChrisL

The fact that they need to have a "poop map" says it all, I think.


----------



## P@triot

ChrisL said:


> The fact that they need to have a "poop map" says it all, I think.


And the leftists right here on this board defend it. Literally. Try to make the case that there is nothing wrong with having your streets covered in human feces and herion needles.


----------



## P@triot

Is there a law that says when any woman who lives in California must shave their head, poke more than 72 holes in their body, and cover themselves head-to-toe in tattoos? 

Calif. Woman Whose Dog Fatally Mauled a Man Pleads Guilty, Can’t Own a Dog Again


----------



## ChrisL

P@triot said:


> Is there a law that says when any woman who lives in California must shave their head, poke more than 72 holes in their body, and cover themselves head-to-toe in tattoos?
> 
> Calif. Woman Whose Dog Fatally Mauled a Man Pleads Guilty, Can’t Own a Dog Again



I have to admit, I am not a fan of that "look" at all.  Maybe it's judgmental of me, but when I see that, I automatically think "skanky."  

I watch Pitbulls and Parolees, and those women are so loaded up with tattoos and piercings.  Yuck.  They seem like very nice and sincere people, however.  I just think they would look so much better without all of that.


----------



## P@triot

A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.

Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s


----------



## miketx

P@triot said:


> A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.
> 
> Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s


Almost as bad as the mush mouth jackass talking in the video.


----------



## toobfreak

P@triot said:


> A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.
> 
> Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s




Well, I bet I haven't seen the inside of a McDonalds in 30 years, and after hearing how they left their employee twisting in the wind to defend herself (physically and legally) after some loon came after her through the drive in window, I won't be using them anytime soon.  Maybe that guy was protesting McDonalds---- in that case, I endorse his action, cannot think of a better place for it to happen.

I just know that I would have left rather than standing around filming a dead raccoon!

NOW THINK ABOUT IT:  some employee will remove that raccoon, they will just wipe off the table with a damp rag, then people will be sitting there eating on that table an hour later, and that damp rag will probably be used by the person all over the store and to prepare your food.

YUM


----------



## toobfreak

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California




It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.





 

It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.


----------



## Corazon

P@triot said:


> A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.
> 
> Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s


I've seen the video...freaking disgusting 
What the hell, this man really need help 
Anyways I feel sorry for the poor raccoon


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
Click to expand...

Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.



You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.

Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.






Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
Click to expand...

Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
Click to expand...



You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
Click to expand...

Spoken like an ignoramus who's never been out of bugtussle West Virginia LOL....


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like an ignoramus who's never been out of bugtussle West Virginia LOL....
Click to expand...

You're obviously speaking for yourself, jack.  I've been all over California and this country.  Here's a couple slides I took with my buddy overlooking the GG bridge and again down on the Tuolome River.  Been to just about every corner of the state.



 

 

California, beautiful state wasted on Californians.  Soon to be cleared out by Coronavirus.  I hear Trump has a placebo all lined up for ya.


----------



## Tax Man

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
Click to expand...

I love it here! So much money to buy my services. Homeless are not a problem except to republicans who can not accept they created them with their I got mine screw you capitalist attitude.


----------



## HappyJoy

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like an ignoramus who's never been out of bugtussle West Virginia LOL....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously speaking for yourself, jack.  I've been all over California and this country.  Here's a couple slides I took with my buddy overlooking the GG bridge and again down on the Tuolome River.  Been to just about every corner of the state.
> 
> View attachment 311532 View attachment 311533
> 
> California, beautiful state wasted on Californians.  Soon to be cleared out by Coronavirus.  I hear Trump has a placebo all lined up for ya.
Click to expand...


Have been there since the 80s?


----------



## Tax Man

HappyJoy said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> 
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like an ignoramus who's never been out of bugtussle West Virginia LOL....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously speaking for yourself, jack.  I've been all over California and this country.  Here's a couple slides I took with my buddy overlooking the GG bridge and again down on the Tuolome River.  Been to just about every corner of the state.
> 
> View attachment 311532 View attachment 311533
> 
> California, beautiful state wasted on Californians.  Soon to be cleared out by Coronavirus.  I hear Trump has a placebo all lined up for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have been there since the 80s?
Click to expand...

I have been here since the 50's.


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like an ignoramus who's never been out of bugtussle West Virginia LOL....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously speaking for yourself, jack.  I've been all over California and this country.  Here's a couple slides I took with my buddy overlooking the GG bridge and again down on the Tuolome River.  Been to just about every corner of the state.
> 
> View attachment 311532 View attachment 311533
> 
> California, beautiful state wasted on Californians.  Soon to be cleared out by Coronavirus.  I hear Trump has a placebo all lined up for ya.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that you are a brainwashed functional GOP moron........


----------



## toobfreak

Tax Man said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homeless are not a problem except to republicans
Click to expand...

Isn't that the problem?  The homeless are not a problem nor concern to anyone but the Republicans.  You guys just step over them and look the other way and tell yourself they're not yours to deal with uncognizant of the fact that a week or year ago, many of them were just like you.  You see the homeless as some other species, a loathsome breed like they did something wrong by being forced into poverty because they were unluckily forced through the cracks that you create.

You see no problem with a significant portion of your society no longer able to contribute or pay taxes instead being a burden that rather than spend the $100 to help them back up as productive people again, you will gladly shell out 10X as much, 100X as much in social costs and other programs so you can pretend they are not your brothers and that the exact same thing could happen to any one of you.


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> 
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like an ignoramus who's never been out of bugtussle West Virginia LOL....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously speaking for yourself, jack.  I've been all over California and this country.  Here's a couple slides I took with my buddy overlooking the GG bridge and again down on the Tuolome River.  Been to just about every corner of the state.
> 
> View attachment 311532 View attachment 311533
> 
> California, beautiful state wasted on Californians.  Soon to be cleared out by Coronavirus.  I hear Trump has a placebo all lined up for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that you are a brainwashed functional GOP moron........
Click to expand...


That is an amazing feat considering I'm not even a republican!  Care to share any other brilliant prognostications of yours?


----------



## Tax Man

toobfreak said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers
> California is our most successful state
> silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homeless are not a problem except to republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that the problem?  The homeless are not a problem nor concern to anyone but the Republicans.  You guys just step over them and look the other way and tell yourself they're not yours to deal with uncognizant of the fact that a week or year ago, many of them were just like you.  You see the homeless as some other species, a loathsome breed like they did something wrong by being forced into poverty because they were unluckily forced through the cracks that you create.
> 
> You see no problem with a significant portion of your society no longer able to contribute or pay taxes instead being a burden that rather than spend the $100 to help them back up as productive people again, you will gladly shell out 10X as much, 100X as much in social costs and other programs so you can pretend they are not your brothers and that the exact same thing could happen to any one of you.
Click to expand...

It would only happen to a con as dems are smart enough to know better than to let it happen. And it is repukes who are adamant about sanitizing the streets because they are too arrogant to walk around poop.


----------



## toobfreak

Tax Man said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to get your facts straight Franky before you shoot off your lower lip any farther.  California is a DISASTER in every way, the only thing that has kept it afloat to this point is good weather most of the time and diverse geology from its tectonic plate collisions!  But now the coronavirus will fix that as well.
> 
> Even with that in mind, California is the embarrassment of the nation.
> 
> View attachment 311398
> 
> Add to that the crime, the insufferable traffic and the masses of illegal foreigners, forest fires, mudslides, El Nino, La Nina, regulations, the list is endless.
> 
> 
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homeless are not a problem except to republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that the problem?  The homeless are not a problem nor concern to anyone but the Republicans.  You guys just step over them and look the other way and tell yourself they're not yours to deal with uncognizant of the fact that a week or year ago, many of them were just like you.  You see the homeless as some other species, a loathsome breed like they did something wrong by being forced into poverty because they were unluckily forced through the cracks that you create.
> 
> You see no problem with a significant portion of your society no longer able to contribute or pay taxes instead being a burden that rather than spend the $100 to help them back up as productive people again, you will gladly shell out 10X as much, 100X as much in social costs and other programs so you can pretend they are not your brothers and that the exact same thing could happen to any one of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would only happen to a con as dems are smart enough to know better than to let it happen. And it is repukes who are adamant about sanitizing the streets because they are too arrogant to walk around poop.
Click to expand...

Sure, you Dems are just too smart to fall into bad luck, get hurt in an accident, lose a job, get sick or anything, huh, Jackass?  You don't worry about sanitizing the streets because you apparently don't mind living in poop.

Democrats, the party of diversity, compassion and help for the poor, right?  They're just poop to you.


----------



## Tax Man

toobfreak said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many damn people too successful. So now New York is number one thank you very much. Many thanks for the scumbag GOP for the global warming, refusal of an ID card to stop illegal immigration, and for lack of investment in infrastructure low income housing etc etc. and of course the propaganda that makes you think California is a wreck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homeless are not a problem except to republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that the problem?  The homeless are not a problem nor concern to anyone but the Republicans.  You guys just step over them and look the other way and tell yourself they're not yours to deal with uncognizant of the fact that a week or year ago, many of them were just like you.  You see the homeless as some other species, a loathsome breed like they did something wrong by being forced into poverty because they were unluckily forced through the cracks that you create.
> 
> You see no problem with a significant portion of your society no longer able to contribute or pay taxes instead being a burden that rather than spend the $100 to help them back up as productive people again, you will gladly shell out 10X as much, 100X as much in social costs and other programs so you can pretend they are not your brothers and that the exact same thing could happen to any one of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would only happen to a con as dems are smart enough to know better than to let it happen. And it is repukes who are adamant about sanitizing the streets because they are too arrogant to walk around poop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you Dems are just too smart to fall into bad luck, get hurt in an accident, lose a job, get sick or anything, huh, Jackass?  You don't worry about sanitizing the streets because you apparently don't mind living in poop.
> 
> Democrats, the party of diversity, compassion and help for the poor, right?  They're just poop to you.
Click to expand...

I am a democrat and help the poor and homeless through county programs. The only people I know who have lost a job are cons who were just too stupid to learn. As an employer I would not hire republicans/conservatives as they don't know how to work. There is no accident only carelessness or stupid, which was designed to be self cancelling.


----------



## toobfreak

Tax Man said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.  All those "successful" people (read: in the entertainment or computer business) are now at the center of the corona infection.  Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
> 
> 
> 
> Homeless are not a problem except to republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that the problem?  The homeless are not a problem nor concern to anyone but the Republicans.  You guys just step over them and look the other way and tell yourself they're not yours to deal with uncognizant of the fact that a week or year ago, many of them were just like you.  You see the homeless as some other species, a loathsome breed like they did something wrong by being forced into poverty because they were unluckily forced through the cracks that you create.
> 
> You see no problem with a significant portion of your society no longer able to contribute or pay taxes instead being a burden that rather than spend the $100 to help them back up as productive people again, you will gladly shell out 10X as much, 100X as much in social costs and other programs so you can pretend they are not your brothers and that the exact same thing could happen to any one of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would only happen to a con as dems are smart enough to know better than to let it happen. And it is repukes who are adamant about sanitizing the streets because they are too arrogant to walk around poop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you Dems are just too smart to fall into bad luck, get hurt in an accident, lose a job, get sick or anything, huh, Jackass?  You don't worry about sanitizing the streets because you apparently don't mind living in poop.
> 
> Democrats, the party of diversity, compassion and help for the poor, right?  They're just poop to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a democrat and help the poor and homeless through county programs. The only people I know who have lost a job are cons who were just too stupid to learn. As an employer I would not hire republicans/conservatives as they don't know how to work. There is no accident only carelessness or stupid, which was designed to be self cancelling.
Click to expand...




I'd laugh that you think you help the poor STAY poor through your county programs.

I'd laugh that you think only stupid cons lose jobs.  Maybe that is because only stupid cons come to you expecting help.

I'd laugh that you think you can help people you don't even respect as people.

I'd laugh that you think that republicans/conservatives don't know how to work as if people are born into a party and never switch sides even after hordes of Obama voters switched to vote for Trump!

I'd laugh that you think there are no accidents, only carelessness or stupidity.  That must mean Trump's election was no accident, but only the carelessness and stupidity of people like you.

I'd laugh at an arrogant nitwit like you but time will do it much better for me when one day you become a victim of your own conceit.


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homeless are not a problem except to republicans
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the problem?  The homeless are not a problem nor concern to anyone but the Republicans.  You guys just step over them and look the other way and tell yourself they're not yours to deal with uncognizant of the fact that a week or year ago, many of them were just like you.  You see the homeless as some other species, a loathsome breed like they did something wrong by being forced into poverty because they were unluckily forced through the cracks that you create.
> 
> You see no problem with a significant portion of your society no longer able to contribute or pay taxes instead being a burden that rather than spend the $100 to help them back up as productive people again, you will gladly shell out 10X as much, 100X as much in social costs and other programs so you can pretend they are not your brothers and that the exact same thing could happen to any one of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would only happen to a con as dems are smart enough to know better than to let it happen. And it is repukes who are adamant about sanitizing the streets because they are too arrogant to walk around poop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you Dems are just too smart to fall into bad luck, get hurt in an accident, lose a job, get sick or anything, huh, Jackass?  You don't worry about sanitizing the streets because you apparently don't mind living in poop.
> 
> Democrats, the party of diversity, compassion and help for the poor, right?  They're just poop to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a democrat and help the poor and homeless through county programs. The only people I know who have lost a job are cons who were just too stupid to learn. As an employer I would not hire republicans/conservatives as they don't know how to work. There is no accident only carelessness or stupid, which was designed to be self cancelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd laugh that you think you help the poor STAY poor through your county programs.
> 
> I'd laugh that you think only stupid cons lose jobs.  Maybe that is because only stupid cons come to you expecting help.
> 
> I'd laugh that you think you can help people you don't even respect as people.
> 
> I'd laugh that you think that republicans/conservatives don't know how to work as if people are born into a party and never switch sides even after hordes of Obama voters switched to vote for Trump!
> 
> I'd laugh that you think there are no accidents, only carelessness or stupidity.  That must mean Trump's election was no accident, but only the carelessness and stupidity of people like you.
> 
> I'd laugh at an arrogant nitwit like you but time will do it much better for me when one day you become a victim of your own conceit.
Click to expand...

The GOP propaganda version of California is a joke. just like their version of everything else....


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the problem?  The homeless are not a problem nor concern to anyone but the Republicans.  You guys just step over them and look the other way and tell yourself they're not yours to deal with uncognizant of the fact that a week or year ago, many of them were just like you.  You see the homeless as some other species, a loathsome breed like they did something wrong by being forced into poverty because they were unluckily forced through the cracks that you create.
> 
> You see no problem with a significant portion of your society no longer able to contribute or pay taxes instead being a burden that rather than spend the $100 to help them back up as productive people again, you will gladly shell out 10X as much, 100X as much in social costs and other programs so you can pretend they are not your brothers and that the exact same thing could happen to any one of you.
> 
> 
> 
> It would only happen to a con as dems are smart enough to know better than to let it happen. And it is repukes who are adamant about sanitizing the streets because they are too arrogant to walk around poop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you Dems are just too smart to fall into bad luck, get hurt in an accident, lose a job, get sick or anything, huh, Jackass?  You don't worry about sanitizing the streets because you apparently don't mind living in poop.
> 
> Democrats, the party of diversity, compassion and help for the poor, right?  They're just poop to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a democrat and help the poor and homeless through county programs. The only people I know who have lost a job are cons who were just too stupid to learn. As an employer I would not hire republicans/conservatives as they don't know how to work. There is no accident only carelessness or stupid, which was designed to be self cancelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd laugh that you think you help the poor STAY poor through your county programs.
> 
> I'd laugh that you think only stupid cons lose jobs.  Maybe that is because only stupid cons come to you expecting help.
> 
> I'd laugh that you think you can help people you don't even respect as people.
> 
> I'd laugh that you think that republicans/conservatives don't know how to work as if people are born into a party and never switch sides even after hordes of Obama voters switched to vote for Trump!
> 
> I'd laugh that you think there are no accidents, only carelessness or stupidity.  That must mean Trump's election was no accident, but only the carelessness and stupidity of people like you.
> 
> I'd laugh at an arrogant nitwit like you but time will do it much better for me when one day you become a victim of your own conceit.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP propaganda version of California is a joke. just like their version of everything else....
Click to expand...

Talk is cheap, buttwipe.  Prove me wrong on a single point or go away.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
Click to expand...

Yes I know you are brainwashed. if they wanted to they could thanks to the GOP refusal of a good ID card.


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
Click to expand...

Certainly not from the rest of the modern world. 70% live paycheck to paycheck worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere in the modern world. Only such country without a living wage health Care daycare cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and mainly taxing the rich their fair share. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed.
Click to expand...

Frank, you're lucky you know what day of the week it is.


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly not from the rest of the modern world. 70% live paycheck to paycheck worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere in the modern world. Only such country without a living wage health Care daycare cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and mainly taxing the rich their fair share. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....
Click to expand...


And yet, season after season, NOT ONE Democrat in the House, Senate or White House has done a THING about that!


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank, you're lucky you know what day of the week it is.
Click to expand...

As usual you have no arguments, troll.


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly not from the rest of the modern world. 70% live paycheck to paycheck worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere in the modern world. Only such country without a living wage health Care daycare cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and mainly taxing the rich their fair share. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, season after season, NOT ONE Democrat in the House, Senate or White House has done a THING about that!
Click to expand...

Well they've passed hundreds of bills in the house which the turtle is sitting on in the Senate. That's they need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate. Republicans are pure obstruction since Reagan hello?!


----------



## protectionist

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


EVERY US state is better.  California is the worst state in America.

 I lived in that drain hole fore 12 mistaken years.  In 1989, I finally got out of there and moved to Florida.
Among California's drawbacks are:

1.  Climate-terrible preciptation seasons.

2.  Wildfires- no state is nearly as bad.

3.  Floods & Mudslides-rainy winters destroy roads and kill people.

4.  Illegal aliens flock in, drain welfare budgets, and swipe jobs.  They also send out remittances$$, depriving small businesses of sales. 

5.  Ocean and bay water is very cold.  Florida has nice warm water and milder surf.

6.  Weak delta levees threaten saltwater intrusion to fresh water supply.  Half of State could require evacuation.

7.  Earthquakes.

8.  Smog

9.  Flea-infested. La Alameda de las Pulgas (the way of the fleas)

10. Monotonous climate.  Every day the same.


----------



## WTH_Progs?

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California





P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



FUCKING A, and I couldn't be more disappointed they're spreading throughout the west.  The entire west supports Bernie, that's all I need to know.  I live in Nevada, we're blue as fuck.  Just the damn HOA's alone makes everyone the same, the yards look worse than a Russian military base.  They rob you of brains and then they rob you of money.  Keep this up I'll leave for certain.  A GD shame.  I still remember when people drank from the water fall and it was peaceful. Go to the same place today it's covered in water bottles and people on their gadgets.

We were better.


----------



## francoHFW

protectionist said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what state is better ?  Name two .
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY US state is better.  California is the worst state in America.
> 
> I lived in that drain hole fore 12 mistaken years.  In 1989, I finally got out of there and moved to Florida.
> Among California's drawbacks are:
> 
> 1.  Climate-terrible preciptation seasons.
> 
> 2.  Wildfires- no state is nearly as bad.
> 
> 3.  Floods & Mudslides-rainy winters destroy roads and kill people.
> 
> 4.  Illegal aliens flock in, drain welfare budgets, and swipe jobs.  They also send out remittances$$, depriving small businesses of sales.
> 
> 5.  Ocean and bay water is very cold.  Florida has nice warm water and milder surf.
> 
> 6.  Weak delta levees threaten saltwater intrusion to fresh water supply.  Half of State could require evacuation.
> 
> 7.  Earthquakes.
> 
> 8.  Smog
> 
> 9.  Flea-infested. La Alameda de las Pulgas (the way of the fleas)
> 
> 10. Monotonous climate.  Every day the same.
Click to expand...

None of which have anything to do with Democrats. And the GOP it is who allows illegals in by their refusal of a good ID card. Like every other modern country has. Something smells fishy.


----------



## francoHFW

WTH_Progs? said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FUCKING A, and I couldn't be more disappointed they're spreading throughout the west.  The entire west supports Bernie, that's all I need to know.  I live in Nevada, we're blue as fuck.  Just the damn HOA's alone makes everyone the same, the yards look worse than a Russian military base.  They rob you of brains and then they rob you of money.  Keep this up I'll leave for certain.  A GD shame.  I still remember when people drank from the water fall and it was peaceful. Go to the same place today it's covered in water bottles and people on their gadgets.
> 
> We were better.
Click to expand...

Too damn many people in California nowadays. New York is number one again about time! Anyway around here we have the same population as 1950 LOL thank you very much I love it.


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank, you're lucky you know what day of the week it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual you have no arguments, troll.
Click to expand...

Sure I do, Buttwipe.  You're lucky you know what YOU think much less the state, condition or thoughts of another person you've never even met!  But you are more than welcome to prove to us you're psychic!  What number am I thinking of right now?  It is somewhere between 0 and 25.  Impress us, Frank.


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that perhaps God is catching up to them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 311235
> 
> It seems that coronavirus likes Hillary voters and most of the epicenters for liberal progressive living.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly not from the rest of the modern world. 70% live paycheck to paycheck worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere in the modern world. Only such country without a living wage health Care daycare cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and mainly taxing the rich their fair share. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, season after season, NOT ONE Democrat in the House, Senate or White House has done a THING about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well they've passed hundreds of bills in the house which the turtle is sitting on in the Senate. That's they need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate. Republicans are pure obstruction since Reagan hello?!
Click to expand...


Poor baby cry us some tears!   Whaaaaaaa!

Nearly 400 House bills stuck in Senate limbo

Frustrated House still waiting for Senate action on 420 bills


----------



## Denizen

Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank, you're lucky you know what day of the week it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual you have no arguments, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do, Buttwipe.  You're lucky you know what YOU think much less the state, condition or thoughts of another person you've never even met!  But you are more than welcome to prove to us you're psychic!  What number am I thinking of right now?  It is somewhere between 0 and 25.  Impress us, Frank.
Click to expand...

Sure troll


----------



## toobfreak

Denizen said:


> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.



You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?


----------



## toobfreak

francoHFW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know you are brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank, you're lucky you know what day of the week it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual you have no arguments, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I do, Buttwipe.  You're lucky you know what YOU think much less the state, condition or thoughts of another person you've never even met!  But you are more than welcome to prove to us you're psychic!  What number am I thinking of right now?  It is somewhere between 0 and 25.  Impress us, Frank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure troll
Click to expand...

Wrong.  It was 23.


----------



## Denizen

toobfreak said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
Click to expand...


In your twisted mind, anything is possible. Looking forward to a visit from the Easter bunny, are you?


----------



## francoHFW

toobfreak said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it likes successful areas that are trade centers, brainwashed functional moron. California is our most successful state but of course it is part of the United States which is a giveaway to the Rich screw everybody else disaster. No money to invest in low-income housing so of course the most successful areas have the most inequality. Great job scumbag GOP and the silly dupes like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the USA is a "disaster."  It's so bad that millions of people from all over the world want to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly not from the rest of the modern world. 70% live paycheck to paycheck worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere in the modern world. Only such country without a living wage health Care daycare cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and mainly taxing the rich their fair share. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, season after season, NOT ONE Democrat in the House, Senate or White House has done a THING about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well they've passed hundreds of bills in the house which the turtle is sitting on in the Senate. That's they need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate. Republicans are pure obstruction since Reagan hello?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor baby cry us some tears!   Whaaaaaaa!
> 
> Nearly 400 House bills stuck in Senate limbo
> 
> Frustrated House still waiting for Senate action on 420 bills
Click to expand...

Just as long as you learn you are a brainwashed functional moron. The GOP is the swamp and pure obstruction. Change the channel


----------



## Denizen

toobfreak said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
Click to expand...


How's that hole in your head?

*inappropriate gif removed*


----------



## Dale Smith

Denizen said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
Click to expand...


Why not spend your energy making a case for Uncle Joe Biden, Kerry, Obama, Romney, Pelosi, etc, etc and justifying their getting rich out of the raping and pillaging of the Ukraine and sweet, chummy deals with the Chi-coms using "dummy" corporations to help China close the gap on USA technology.........that would be entertaining to see ya spin that one.


----------



## Denizen

Dale Smith said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not spend your energy making a case for Uncle Joe Biden, Kerry, Obama, Romney, Pelosi, etc, etc and justifying their getting rich out of the raping and pillaging of the Ukraine and sweet, chummy deals with the Chi-coms using "dummy" corporations to help China close the gap on USA technology.........that would be entertaining to see ya spin that one.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't want to vex you and distract you from your favorite site, the Dopey Donald Trump propaganda organization, Faux News.

If I were to puncture your ego you would be bereft of the fantasies of your demented mind and inconsolable.

Please don't thank me.


----------



## Dale Smith

Denizen said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not spend your energy making a case for Uncle Joe Biden, Kerry, Obama, Romney, Pelosi, etc, etc and justifying their getting rich out of the raping and pillaging of the Ukraine and sweet, chummy deals with the Chi-coms using "dummy" corporations to help China close the gap on USA technology.........that would be entertaining to see ya spin that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want to vex you and distract you from your favorite site, the Dopey Donald Trump propaganda organization, Faux News.
> 
> If I were to puncture your ego you would be bereft of the fantasies of your demented mind and inconsolable.
> 
> Please don't thank me.
Click to expand...


I have no intention of going back and becoming a U.S citizen again by signing a voter registration card and making a cohesion contract with USA.INC. I know that there is massive corruption as it pertains to both bought and paid for political parties. My stance (of which I have been very upfront about) is that the fabian socialist leftists make me wanna puke and as bad as I might despise the neocon trotsky-ites? I wouldn't throw my considerable weight and influence behind a communist member of the DNC under any circumstance....not a single scenario as to where I would ever wish to be "comrades" with dipshits like yourself and those of your ilk. I would slit the throat of a leftist before I would ever support one and you can etch it in stone and commit it to memory.


----------



## Denizen

Dale Smith said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not spend your energy making a case for Uncle Joe Biden, Kerry, Obama, Romney, Pelosi, etc, etc and justifying their getting rich out of the raping and pillaging of the Ukraine and sweet, chummy deals with the Chi-coms using "dummy" corporations to help China close the gap on USA technology.........that would be entertaining to see ya spin that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want to vex you and distract you from your favorite site, the Dopey Donald Trump propaganda organization, Faux News.
> 
> If I were to puncture your ego you would be bereft of the fantasies of your demented mind and inconsolable.
> 
> Please don't thank me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no intention of going back and becoming a U.S citizen again by signing a voter registration card and making a cohesion contract with USA.INC. I know that there is massive corruption as it pertains to both bought and paid for political parties. My stance (of which I have been very upfront about) is that the fabian socialist leftists make me wanna puke and as bad as I might despise the neocon trotsky-ites? I wouldn't throw my considerable weight and influence behind a communist member of the DNC under any circumstance....not a single scenario as to where I would ever wish to be "comrades" with dipshits like yourself and those of your ilk. I would slit the throat of a leftist before I would ever support one and you can etch it in stone and commit it to memory.
Click to expand...


You win the Dopey Donald Trump brown nugget award. In your case, Dopey Donald Trump doesn't even have to put gold paint on the turd before presenting it to you.

Keep it under your hat.


----------



## Dale Smith

Denizen said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not spend your energy making a case for Uncle Joe Biden, Kerry, Obama, Romney, Pelosi, etc, etc and justifying their getting rich out of the raping and pillaging of the Ukraine and sweet, chummy deals with the Chi-coms using "dummy" corporations to help China close the gap on USA technology.........that would be entertaining to see ya spin that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want to vex you and distract you from your favorite site, the Dopey Donald Trump propaganda organization, Faux News.
> 
> If I were to puncture your ego you would be bereft of the fantasies of your demented mind and inconsolable.
> 
> Please don't thank me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no intention of going back and becoming a U.S citizen again by signing a voter registration card and making a cohesion contract with USA.INC. I know that there is massive corruption as it pertains to both bought and paid for political parties. My stance (of which I have been very upfront about) is that the fabian socialist leftists make me wanna puke and as bad as I might despise the neocon trotsky-ites? I wouldn't throw my considerable weight and influence behind a communist member of the DNC under any circumstance....not a single scenario as to where I would ever wish to be "comrades" with dipshits like yourself and those of your ilk. I would slit the throat of a leftist before I would ever support one and you can etch it in stone and commit it to memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You win the Dopey Donald Trump brown nugget award. In your case, Dopey Donald Trump doesn't even have to put gold paint on the turd before presenting it to you.
> 
> Keep it under your hat.
Click to expand...


I understand your angst......I get it allllll the time by leftards. I meet them during my travels....mostly at airport bars in between flights. Some liberal chick will start spewing hatred at Trump and I reply that until we return to an honest monetary system that doesn't put more and more wealth into fewer hands? We are screwed. Those like her automatically assume I am a "lie-ber-al" and they ask me about what approach the dems should use to take back the House (which they didn't have at the time) and the senate and what about 2020? I told them "You have totally read me wrong, neither party is worth a fuck and works on behalf of the robber barons that have owned this country since the early 1900's". Then this chick gets all nasally and says "You are not a lie-ber-all? I thought you were a lie-ber-all.........you should be a lie-ber-all" as if she was making the decision for me..a recruit as it were. Needless to say? By the time I got done explaining the way the real system works and not this left versus right paradigm that she desperately clings to and meant to divide us? She stuttered, stammered and had no rebuttal.

 I offered to buy her another glass of Chardonnay with an apology if I had misled her somewhere along the line of our conversation that we were some kind of kindred souls........but I made it clear that I was't on her "team" and never would be, I explained the difference between the organic Constitution of 1787 and the Corporate Constitution of the Act of 1871 making us all 14th amendment citizens and under the federal jurisdiction of USA.INC of Washington D.C instead of the state citizen in which we were born in. I might as well have been speaking Latin. Her attempt to convert me to fabian socialism ended right then and there.. because she had no clue.....and she was a 4 year graduate of a eastern university and mistook my southern accent for being uneducated but felt that because I understood the wealth redistribution scam that I was a potential convert. You might say that she learned a valuable lesson about not judging a book by it's cover. It's pretty damn cool when you can shut down a motormouth pseudo liberal by shoving some indisputable truths in her face. It's a talent of mine, ya might say.


----------



## toobfreak

Denizen said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
Click to expand...


Is that a personal THREAT, turnip-brain?  You wanna SHOOT me?


----------



## toobfreak

Dale Smith said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not spend your energy making a case for Uncle Joe Biden. . .
Click to expand...




Denizen said:


> I wouldn't want to vex you and distract you from your favorite site . . .



*BONEHEAD TRANSLATION TO ENGLISH:*  250 baseless personal smear threads on Trump, 0 threads expounding the policies and attributes of why Biden is better.

Pretty much says it all.  The only thing the tards are less happy about than pulling a lever for "Uncle Joe" is Trump being in office for a 2nd term.




 
*PRESIDENT STONE-FACE*

*PRESIDENT NO PERSONALITY*

*PRESIDENT INSULT THE VOTER*

*PRESIDENT HUMORLESS*

*PRESIDENT ALZHEIMERS*

It's all pretty much the same.


----------



## Denizen

toobfreak said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a personal THREAT, turnip-brain?  You wanna SHOOT me?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't waste a bullet on you. You are already brain dead, a Trump zombie.


----------



## toobfreak

Denizen said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a personal THREAT, turnip-brain?  You wanna SHOOT me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't waste a bullet on you. You are already brain dead, a Trump zombie.
Click to expand...



You COULDN'T waste a bullet on me.  Not only don't you even own a firearm (admit it), you couldn't hit the side of a barn and would end up shooting your own foot off.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ? Name two .


Why the limit?


----------



## Denizen

toobfreak said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be DJT's biggest fan then.  Nothing like a cartoon FROM a cartoon mind to back up a cartoonish claim!  Tell us Moron, does Donald really wear his ties dragging on the floor, too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that hole in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a personal THREAT, turnip-brain?  You wanna SHOOT me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't waste a bullet on you. You are already brain dead, a Trump zombie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You COULDN'T waste a bullet on me.  Not only don't you even own a firearm (admit it), you couldn't hit the side of a barn and would end up shooting your own foot off.
Click to expand...


You are now fantasizing that a person without a firearm could shoot themselves in the foot. You are evidently a Trump University alumnus.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.
> 
> Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s


Enjoy your commie SS.
I expect you think you paid for it.
Don't end up in hospital with a million $ bill and plead with me to pay it


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.
> 
> Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s


You've clearly never been to Pleasanton.
Rather the same old swill , sucking off your socialist fire dept, police, SS Medicare roads and 100 others.
Where is this conservative haven?
Mississippi?
Bring back lynching that's what I say


----------



## ph3iron

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.
> 
> Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s
> 
> 
> 
> You've clearly never been to Pleasanton.
> Rather the same old swill , sucking off your socialist fire dept, police, SS Medicare roads and 100 others.
> Where is this conservative haven?
> Mississippi?
> Bring back lynching that's what I say
Click to expand...

What do we expect a dumb patriot with a womanizer as his pic


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Too damn many people in California nowadays.


Well that’s what happens when idiot Dumbocrats create sanctuary cities for 20 *million* illegal aliens, in direct violation of federal law.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Just as long as you learn you are a brainwashed functional moron.


From the completely brainwashed dysfunctional moron who mooches off of society.


francoHFW said:


> The GOP is the swamp and pure obstruction.


It’s the Dumbocrat Party that engaged in Russian collusion (Hitlery/Steele/Perkins Coie). It’s the Dumbocrat Party that that lied on a FISA warrant (felony). It’s the Dumbocrat Party that tried to *illegally* sneak tax payer paid abortion into a COVID-19 emergency bill this week (Pelosi).

The Dumbocrat Party is the unconstitutional, anti-American party. But hey, “free shit”, right parasite?


----------



## Jitss617

Latinos will do that to a region


----------



## P@triot

Denizen said:


> You win the Dopey Donald Trump brown nugget award.


You’ve made more than half a dozen posts now without adding a single ounce of value in any capacity. It’s almost amazing. All you do is post incoherent babble like “dopey brown nugget”. In all seriousness, what grade are you in? There is absolutely no way you are an adult. None.

You’re a typical leftist. Immature. Ignorant. And incapable of defending your bat-shit crazy position of desiring socialism so you can mooch off of society.


----------



## P@triot

Denizen said:


> I wouldn't waste a bullet on you. You are already brain dead, a Trump zombie.


From the mindless socialist who needs government to provide _every_ basic necessity


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man in San Francisco brings in a dead, rotting raccoon and sets it on a table. Typical left-wing shit-hole. You’d *never* see that in a conservative city. _Ever_.
> 
> Man brings dead raccoon into a McDonald’s
> 
> 
> 
> You've clearly never been to Pleasanton.
> Rather the same old swill , sucking off your socialist fire dept, police, SS Medicare roads and 100 others.
> Where is this conservative haven?
> Mississippi?
> Bring back lynching that's what I say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do we expect a dumb patriot with a womanizer as his pic
Click to expand...

ph3iron is now responding to his own posts


----------



## P@triot

Denizen said:


> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.


From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?

Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'


----------



## francoHFW

Jitss617 said:


> Latinos will do that to a region


Many thanks to the GOP for refusing a comprehensive immigration policy with an ID card that would end this crap like every other modern country with the problem. Thanks scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....


----------



## Jitss617

Is there any fucking surprise that California went from being mostly white and great to Latino to shit


----------



## Jitss617

francoHFW said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Latinos will do that to a region
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks to the GOP for refusing a comprehensive immigration policy with an ID card that would end this crap like every other modern country with the problem. Thanks scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....
Click to expand...

You lobe this chaos! Until you don’t make it


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as long as you learn you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> 
> 
> From the completely brainwashed dysfunctional moron who mooches off of society.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is the swamp and pure obstruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the Dumbocrat Party that engaged in Russian collusion (Hitlery/Steele/Perkins Coie). It’s the Dumbocrat Party that that lied on a FISA warrant (felony). It’s the Dumbocrat Party that tried to *illegally* sneak tax payer paid abortion into a COVID-19 emergency bill this week (Pelosi).
> 
> The Dumbocrat Party is the unconstitutional, anti-American party. But hey, “free shit”, right parasite?
Click to expand...

I am still happily retired, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe. You are a perfect chump of the greedy idiot lying thieving GOP mega-rich. And totally brainwashed into hating your fellow citizens for no reason.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?
> 
> Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'
Click to expand...

way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?
> 
> Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
Click to expand...

Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!

*Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
_The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_

_Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?
> 
> Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
Click to expand...

Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.


----------



## HenryBHough

Remember, when exposed to sunlight, shit hardens into a substance stronger than asphalt.
Too bad San Francisco is so cloudy and foggiy else they'd never have to repave again!


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?
> 
> Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
Click to expand...

"Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately in need of need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dopey Donald Trump loves the poorly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?
> 
> Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
Click to expand...

Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?
> 
> Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'
> 
> 
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
Click to expand...

If property owners are gouging then we should have some rent control. Stop being a chump LOL


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the high school dropout who supports a party like _this_. Let me guess, you were the passed out faggot who was overdosing on the crystal meth?
> 
> Source: Police found Andrew Gillum completely undressed in hotel room with self-described 'porn star'
> 
> 
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
Click to expand...

More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbocrat Party is the unconstitutional, anti-American party. But hey, “free shit”, right parasite?
> 
> 
> 
> I am still happily retired, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe...
Click to expand...

So you are a "happily retired, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe." 

Yeah … all can see that, Capt Obvious.


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If property owners are gouging then we should have some rent control. Stop being a chump LOL
Click to expand...

"Gouging??? Yeah, that's what we need  … more big, greasy, corrupt, central gov't control!! Thank you Comrade Moron.

FFS leftards are so stupid.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> way to perfectly illustrate what the poorly educated and brainwashed functional morons are obsessed with while the greedy idiot mega rich GOP screws them forever....
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
Click to expand...

too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?


----------



## SAYIT

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you would mention that, Comrade Moron!!! Another evil American corporation just today announced their intent to starve and oppress the working man. We must stop them!!!
> 
> *Disneyland will donate all of its excess food to a local charity during the park's temporary closure*
> _The March 12 announcement from Disneyland Resort, that Disneyland park and Disney California Adventure will be temporarily closing in the face of the coronavirus, surely brought a question to many fans' minds: What will happen with the famous food that's synonymous with The Happiest Place on Earth?_
> 
> _Here's the answer: All "excess food inventory" at the Anaheim parks is being donated to Second Harvest Food Bank, an organization seeking to "end hunger in Orange County."_
> 
> 
> 
> Great, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
Click to expand...

Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totallyGreat, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> 
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
Click to expand...

the bloated rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder. The last 30 years. Only propaganda makes this GOP disgrace possible super duper.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totallyGreat, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> 
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
Click to expand...

Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to raise taxes only on the rich and giant corporations that have been getting away with murder for 30 years. You are totallyGreat, if they are being taxed their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans again for the first time in 30 years. Thanks GOP tax rates! And garbage propaganda for the chumps.
> 
> 
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
Click to expand...

Socialism as sure as hell not communism for crying out loud.


----------



## JustAGuy1

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Taxed their fare share" according to whiny, sniveling, bitter life's losers? Do you have any idea who pays those corp taxes you leftarded dupe? Here's a clue 'cause you always seem so desperately to need one … get an adult in your life to explain the connection:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
Click to expand...


Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.


----------



## SAYIT

JustAGuy1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats only want to raise taxes on the bloated Rich who have been getting away with murder for 30 years. Ditto giant corporations. We have to invest in America like infrastructure and Americans like cheap college and training.
> 
> 
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
Click to expand...

It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.

Consider yourself warned.


----------



## JustAGuy1

SAYIT said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
Click to expand...


Does he have protectors with "higher powers"?


----------



## francoHFW

And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functional morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non


SAYIT said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> More horse poop. You are obviously a swallower, Comrade.
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
Click to expand...

Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers


----------



## SAYIT

JustAGuy1 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does he have protectors with "higher powers"?
Click to expand...

HAZMAT … he lives in the leftarded bubble world.


----------



## JustAGuy1

francoHFW said:


> And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functional morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you are a brainwashed functional moron and don't know any of the facts about what Democrats want, just ridiculous fear-mongering. Do you have any actual argument or just stupid insults?
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers
Click to expand...


So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.


----------



## Flash

Notice that the biggest outbreaks of the virus in the US are in the Democrat controlled shitholes.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does he have protectors with "higher powers"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAZMAT … he lives in the leftarded bubble world.
Click to expand...

Do any of you have any arguments why we should be the biggest chumps in the modern world? LOL. And so It goes


----------



## francoHFW

JustAGuy1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functiona itl morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.
Click to expand...

More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.


----------



## JustAGuy1

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does he have protectors with "higher powers"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAZMAT … he lives in the leftarded bubble world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do any of you have any arguments why we should be the biggest chumps in the modern world? LOL. And so It goes
Click to expand...


So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you, run bitch.


----------



## JustAGuy1

francoHFW said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functiona itl morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
Click to expand...


You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.


----------



## francoHFW

JustAGuy1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functiona itl morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.
Click to expand...

And you appear to be a troll. Can you argue the subject? Just stupid insults a couple of talking points and you're done. Everyone says the same thing all Democrats say the same thing about the minimum wage. Of course places like New York City Seattle San Francisco might have higher ones and Mississippi and other backwater Republican states can have lower ones.


----------



## francoHFW

SAYIT said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I listen to what they say and your attempts to sugarcoat it are lame at best. They say "more big gov't spending" and you think "more "free" stuff!" You never concern yourself with details like who will pay.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it is not more government spending it is just intelligent government. Like efficient  healthcare for all a living wage cheap college and training investment in infrastructure great vacations. This is pathetic, brainwashed functional moron. All to save the rich the incredibly bloated rich. Absolute idiocy for the chumps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does he have protectors with "higher powers"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAZMAT … he lives in the leftarded bubble world.
Click to expand...

I watch Fox 2- the five everyday I love it. I also listen to Rush. It's all crap LOL. Jessie Greg the bimbos. Dana is good. But they are funny. Very addictive garbage propaganda.


----------



## francoHFW

JustAGuy1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functiona itl morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell u pussy boy what is a "living wage"? Quantify it or stfu.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.
Click to expand...

I don't listen totally to the GOP propaganda service so I know what's going on. The entire rest of the world thinks you're crazy.


----------



## JustAGuy1

francoHFW said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functiona itl morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a serious violation of USMB TOS regs to even request that Comrade Franco explain his silliness.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen totally to the GOP propaganda service so I know what's going on. The entire rest of the world thinks you're crazy.
Click to expand...


You just make shit up as you go. You don't know anything at all.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Many thanks to the GOP for refusing a comprehensive immigration policy....


We _already_ have a "comprehensive immigration policy". Have for like 250 years. 

You a shockingly stupid. Like, it literally takes my breath away. No wonder you need government for your basic necessities. A toddler would have a better chance of surviving on their own than you would.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks to the GOP for refusing a comprehensive immigration policy....
> 
> 
> 
> We _already_ have a "comprehensive immigration policy". Have for like 250 years.
> 
> You a shockingly stupid. Like, it literally takes my breath away. No wonder you need government for your basic necessities. A toddler would have a better chance of surviving on their own than you would.
Click to expand...

Until we have a good ID card we will always have so many illegals. Of course there has been no crisis the last few years just bulshit for the dupes like you. You would think the GOP loves having illegals they are so incompetent at it. The wall is stupid won't work


----------



## francoHFW

JustAGuy1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way everything you right-wing brainwashed functiona itl morons know about California his garbage propaganda. How about fixing some proble non
> Hilarious that's all I do here for Christ's sake lol. $12 an hour at least for the minimum living wage 15 sounds good. Less for teenagers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen totally to the GOP propaganda service so I know what's going on. The entire rest of the world thinks you're crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just make shit up as you go. You don't know anything at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah Rupert Murdoch is God haha yeah


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> And totally brainwashed into hating your fellow citizens for no reason.


Says the brainwashed dysfunctional moron who hates anyone who has been successful. Ironically, the Koch brothers have done more for mankind than every Franco in the history of the world.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Until we have a good ID card we will always have so many illegals.


We _have_ ID's you imbecile (drivers license, state ID, social security cards, and on and on and on).

You are so dumb, it's terrifying.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> I watch Fox 2- the five everyday I love it. I also listen to Rush. It's all crap LOL. Jessie Greg the bimbos. Dana is good. But they are funny. Very addictive garbage propaganda.


The left is addicted to lying. If Franco listens to any of those even once, he'd be exponentially more informed than he actually is. I guarantee his channel never leaves MSNBC.


----------



## JustAGuy1

francoHFW said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't REALLY mean a living wage. You mean just enough to make YOU feel better about you.
> 
> 
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen totally to the GOP propaganda service so I know what's going on. The entire rest of the world thinks you're crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just make shit up as you go. You don't know anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah yeah Rupert Murdoch is God haha yeah
Click to expand...


Son, you don't know shit.


----------



## P@triot

Three years later...still _unbelievable_ that the left would de-criminalize attempted murder.

Knowingly exposing others to HIV is no longer a felony in California


----------



## francoHFW

JustAGuy1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen totally to the GOP propaganda service so I know what's going on. The entire rest of the world thinks you're crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just make shit up as you go. You don't know anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah yeah Rupert Murdoch is God haha yeah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you don't know shit.
Click to expand...

He runs the GOP along with Rush Limbaugh. All Trump had to do to take over your stupid party was parrot a gigantic pile of garbage propaganda.


----------



## francoHFW

JustAGuy1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> More brainwashed psychobabble. meanwhile you vote for assholes who wants to do away with a minimum wage all together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a child and a coward. Let me guess, you're a big assed dude with A LOT of education who thinks he/she is a bad ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen totally to the GOP propaganda service so I know what's going on. The entire rest of the world thinks you're crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just make shit up as you go. You don't know anything at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah yeah Rupert Murdoch is God haha yeah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you don't know shit.
Click to expand...

I admire and respect your brain washed functional opinion


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Three years later...still _unbelievable_ that the left would de-criminalize attempted murder.
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV is no longer a felony in California


They basically have a cure for it now. and they have expanded Medicaid in California it's not a scumbag red-state.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we have a good ID card we will always have so many illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> We _have_ ID's you imbecile (drivers license, state ID, social security cards, and on and on and on).
> 
> You are so dumb, it's terrifying.
Click to expand...

All easily faked especially the social security card, brainwashed functional moron. We're talking about stopping them from working.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watch Fox 2- the five everyday I love it. I also listen to Rush. It's all crap LOL. Jessie Greg the bimbos. Dana is good. But they are funny. Very addictive garbage propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> The left is addicted to lying. If Franco listens to any of those even once, he'd be exponentially more informed than he actually is. I guarantee his channel never leaves MSNBC.
Click to expand...

You are incredibly misinformed and I watch everything breed everything. Google Google news they just organize every possible media. Of course you're afraid to get out in the fresh air.....


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> They *basically* have a *cure* for it now. and they have expanded Medicaid in California it's not a scumbag red-state.


There is no "basically", you ass-hat idiot. There is either a cure or there isn't. And they *isn't* a cure for AIDS. To claim attempted murder is ok because California is idiot socialized medicine is a special kind of ignorance. But then, you are a special kind of ignorant.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we have a good ID card we will always have so many illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> We _have_ ID's you imbecile (drivers license, state ID, social security cards, and on and on and on).
> 
> You are so dumb, it's terrifying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All easily faked especially the social security card, brainwashed functional moron. We're talking about stopping them from working.
Click to expand...

Bwahaha! So you want to add another card with the same technology that will be equally "easily faked". You really are a special kind of stupid.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They *basically* have a *cure* for it now. and they have expanded Medicaid in California it's not a scumbag red-state.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "basically", you ass-hat idiot. There is either a cure or there isn't. And they *isn't* a cure for AIDS. To claim attempted murder is ok because California is idiot socialized medicine is a special kind of ignorance. But then, you are a special kind of ignorant.
Click to expand...

They have medicine for AIDS so that people can live a normal life. Read something ignoramus


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we have a good ID card we will always have so many illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> We _have_ ID's you imbecile (drivers license, state ID, social security cards, and on and on and on).
> 
> You are so dumb, it's terrifying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All easily faked especially the social security card, brainwashed functional moron. We're talking about stopping them from working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahaha! So you want to add another card with the same technology that will be equally "easily faked". You really are a special kind of stupid.
Click to expand...

They have a computer chip for that. and other countries have taken care of their immigration problems. Of course you need enforcement too which the GOP blocks. Super duper.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> They have a computer chip for that. and other countries have taken care of their immigration problems.


Yeah, ‘cause _nobody_ could ever fake a computer chip. 


francoHFW said:


> Of course you need enforcement too which the GOP blocks. Super duper.


Asshat - it’s the Dumbocrat Party that you support which has set up sanctuary cities to prevent us from enforcing basic immigration laws.

Why do you think you can blame the Republican Party for your crimes in this era of the internet and technology? It’s easy to look this shit up and prove you’re lying. Dumb ass.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They *basically* have a *cure* for it now. and they have expanded Medicaid in California it's not a scumbag red-state.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "basically", you ass-hat idiot. There is either a cure or there isn't. And they *isn't* a cure for AIDS. To claim attempted murder is ok because California is idiot socialized medicine is a special kind of ignorance. But then, you are a special kind of ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have medicine for AIDS so that people can live a normal life. Read something ignoramus
Click to expand...

That’s not a “cure” you ignorant asshat. Oh, and not everybody lives in California. So if they get AIDS from a typical infested leftist who spreads it on purpose, what good does the ignorant “expanded Medicaid” do for the Utah resident? Imbecile.


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They *basically* have a *cure* for it now. and they have expanded Medicaid in California it's not a scumbag red-state.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "basically", you ass-hat idiot. There is either a cure or there isn't. And they *isn't* a cure for AIDS. To claim attempted murder is ok because California is idiot socialized medicine is a special kind of ignorance. But then, you are a special kind of ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have medicine for AIDS so that people can live a normal life. Read something ignoramus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s not a “cure” you ignorant asshat. Oh, and not everybody lives in California. So if they get AIDS from a typical infested leftist who spreads it on purpose, what good does the ignorant “expanded Medicaid” do for the Utah resident? Imbecile.
Click to expand...


HIV and AIDSis a treatable disease that people no longer die from. I would say "stop being an ignorant ass" but I might as well say "sun, stop rising".


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They *basically* have a *cure* for it now. and they have expanded Medicaid in California it's not a scumbag red-state.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "basically", you ass-hat idiot. There is either a cure or there isn't. And they *isn't* a cure for AIDS. To claim attempted murder is ok because California is idiot socialized medicine is a special kind of ignorance. But then, you are a special kind of ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have medicine for AIDS so that people can live a normal life. Read something ignoramus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s not a “cure” you ignorant asshat. Oh, and not everybody lives in California. So if they get AIDS from a typical infested leftist who spreads it on purpose, what good does the ignorant “expanded Medicaid” do for the Utah resident? Imbecile.
Click to expand...

if you Utah's so stupid as to elect assholes and then not protest crap like that it's their own problem. Plus it's as good as a cure so shut the fuk up you ignorant tool. Oh sorry.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a computer chip for that. and other countries have taken care of their immigration problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, ‘cause _nobody_ could ever fake a computer chip.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you need enforcement too which the GOP blocks. Super duper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asshat - it’s the Dumbocrat Party that you support which has set up sanctuary cities to prevent us from enforcing basic immigration laws.
> 
> Why do you think you can blame the Republican Party for your crimes in this era of the internet and technology? It’s easy to look this shit up and prove you’re lying. Dumb ass.
Click to expand...

the GOP is responsible for all the immigrants because they refuse a good ID card and enforcement... And distract fools like you with stupid walls and harassment laws. Of course you have no idea what sanctuary laws are about. See Wikipedia read something


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> the GOP is responsible for all the immigrants because they refuse a good ID card and *enforcement*...


Again, dumb little dillhole, it’s the Dumbocrats who have blatantly refused enforcement. They opened our borders when they controlled the Executive Branch and they created sanctuary cities - both in blatant disregard for our laws.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Plus it's *as good as* a cure so...


Franco is so desperate at this point, he wants to argue that medications for AIDS are “as good as a cure”. 

*1.* There is no cure for AIDS. Period.

*2.* Imagine arguing that intentionally spreading AIDS to other people should be legal. That’s exactly what asshat Franco has been doing.

Only the immoral and unethical left could advocate for something so repugnant.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> HIV and AIDSis a treatable disease that people no longer die from.


So logically it should be ok to intentionally spread it to others... 

You really are disgusting. You know it’s wrong, but you toe the left-wing line at all costs. Even basic human decency.


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> HIV and AIDSis a treatable disease that people no longer die from.
> 
> 
> 
> So logically it should be ok to intentionally spread it to others...
> 
> You really are disgusting. You know it’s wrong, but you toe the left-wing line at all costs. Even basic human decency.
Click to expand...


Of course it's wrong. And? It does not make YOU any less of an ignorant ass.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Of course it's wrong. And?


And the shit-hole state of California - run by the ignorant left - changed their laws so that it is no longer a crime. The fact that you pretend not to understand illustrates that you really are among the worst types of partisan hacks.


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's wrong. And?
> 
> 
> 
> And the shit-hole state of California - run by the ignorant left - changed their laws so that it is no longer a crime. The fact that you pretend not to understand illustrates that you really are among the worst types of partisan hacks.
Click to expand...


The only ignorance is yours, Puppy. It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease. I know you want to punish gays for being gay, but California said "no". 

_SB 239 updates California criminal law to approach transmission of HIV in the same way as transmission of other serious communicable diseases. It also brings California statutes up to date with the current understanding of HIV prevention, treatment and transmission. The bill fulfills a key goal of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and is consistent with guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice and with California’s “Getting to Zero” HIV transmission reduction strategy.[...]

Beginning in the late 1980s and at the height of the HIV epidemic, lawmakers passed several laws criminalizing otherwise legal behaviors of people living with HIV and added HIV-related penalties to existing crimes. These laws were based on fear and the limited medical understanding of the time. When most of these laws were passed, there were no effective treatments for HIV and discrimination against people living with HIV was rampant. Research now demonstrates that people living with HIV on effective treatment cannot transmit the virus to their partners. HIV-negative individuals can now take medication, known as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by up to 99 percent. SB 239 ensures that these advances inform our laws and the manner in which we address our public health response to HIV.

“With his signature, Governor Brown has moved California’s archaic HIV laws out of the 1980s and into the 21st century,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “SB 239 will do much to reduce stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV – it is not only fair, but it’s good public health. When people are no longer penalized for knowing their status, it encourages them to come forward, get tested and get treatment. That’s good for all Californians.”_


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease. I know you want to punish gays for being gay, but California said "no".


Ho....ly.....shit. Heterophobe here just exposed her true views.

*1.* Only fags have AIDS (in her mind)

*2.* Fags _intentionally_ spread AIDS to others (in her mind)

*3.* It was legally attempted murder in California for a long time - so that extreme left-wing state “wanted to punish” fags for decades!


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease.


Because...you know...giving someone AIDS intentionally is absolutely no different at all from giving them gonorrhea. None. 

As ignorant as you are (and you are astoundingly ignorant), even you don’t believe that. Which illustrates your desperation to support all things left-wing.


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease. I know you want to punish gays for being gay, but California said "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ho....ly.....shit. Heterophobe here just exposed her true views.
> 
> *1.* Only fags have AIDS (in her mind)
> 
> *2.* Fags _intentionally_ spread AIDS to others (in her mind)
> 
> *3.* It was legally attempted murder in California for a long time - so that extreme left-wing state “wanted to punish” fags for decades!
Click to expand...


No, douchenozzle, that's not what I said, but thanks for proving my point.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease. I know you want to punish gays for being gay, but California said "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ho....ly.....shit. Heterophobe here just exposed her true views.
> 
> *1.* Only fags have AIDS (in her mind)
> 
> *2.* Fags _intentionally_ spread AIDS to others (in her mind)
> 
> *3.* It was legally attempted murder in California for a long time - so that extreme left-wing state “wanted to punish” fags for decades!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, douchenozzle, that's not what I said, but thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

That’s *exactly* what you said. You immediately went to gays even though millions of heterosexual people have AIDS. Oops.


----------



## P@triot

The least educated state in America. No shock there. Left-wing policy ends in catastrophic failure every time.









						California ranked as the least educated state in the country -
					

A new report is out showing the least educated state in the country, and the “winner” may surprise you. According to new data from the Census Bureau, California is the least educated state in America. It ranked number one for the percentage of those over 25-years-old who have never completed...




					www.kusi.com


----------



## P@triot

Wherever the left-wing ideology reigns - society rapidly becomes a cesspool. Think of the serial killers _just_ form Los Angeles: the Hillside Stranglers. The Night Stalker. The Grim Sleeper. The Freeway Killer. Chester Turner. Patrick Kearney. The list goes on and on and on. From one little city.

It's what happens when you embrace an ideology that rejects God, promotes promiscuity, punishes success, rewards being idle, and loves drugs and alcohol.









						'Grim Sleeper': 7 Things to Know After Lonnie Franklin's Death
					

Lonnie Franklin, the L.A.-serial killer known as the "Grim Sleeper," died in his prison cell on March 28, 2020.




					people.com


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. Locking up law abiding citizens and setting free some of the most dangerous inmates...








						D.A. warns public of 7 ‘high-risk’ sex offenders released in California amid coronavirus pandemic
					

– Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer on Tuesday issued a warning to residents after seven registered sex offenders who he said were “high-risk” were recently released from custody e…




					www.kron4.com


----------



## basquebromance

Governor Gavin Newsom Closes Orange County Beaches; O.C. Sheriff Says He Won’t Enforce Order
					

Citing images of beachgoers crowding the sand at Newport Beach last weekend, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that he would close the beaches in Orange County. “We’re gui…




					deadline.com
				




OC sheriff to Gov. Loathsome: NO!


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Wherever the left-wing ideology reigns - society rapidly becomes a cesspool. Think of the serial killers _just_ form Los Angeles: the Hillside Stranglers. The Night Stalker. The Grim Sleeper. The Freeway Killer. Chester Turner. Patrick Kearney. The list goes on and on and on. From one little city.
> 
> It's what happens when you embrace an ideology that rejects God, promotes promiscuity, punishes success, rewards being idle, and loves drugs and alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Grim Sleeper': 7 Things to Know After Lonnie Franklin's Death
> 
> 
> Lonnie Franklin, the L.A.-serial killer known as the "Grim Sleeper," died in his prison cell on March 28, 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people.com



What about TBK? ted bundy? tim mcveigh? Or dick cheney?


----------



## MeBelle

otto105 said:


> What about TBK? ted bundy? tim mcveigh? Or dick cheney?



Ted died, Tim was executed,  BTK is 'living' his life in a SuperMax.

Dick????

I know where you wanna go with DICK - I won't stay to watch.


----------



## MeBelle

P@triot said:


> The least educated state in America. No shock there. Left-wing policy ends in catastrophic failure every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California ranked as the least educated state in the country -
> 
> 
> A new report is out showing the least educated state in the country, and the “winner” may surprise you. According to new data from the Census Bureau, California is the least educated state in America. It ranked number one for the percentage of those over 25-years-old who have never completed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kusi.com



D's in high school are a passing grade.

Pathetic and sad beyond repair.


----------



## MeBelle

P@triot said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease. I know you want to punish gays for being gay, but California said "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ho....ly.....shit. Heterophobe here just exposed her true views.
> 
> *1.* Only fags have AIDS (in her mind)
> 
> *2.* Fags _intentionally_ spread AIDS to others (in her mind)
> 
> *3.* It was legally attempted murder in California for a long time - so that extreme left-wing state “wanted to punish” fags for decades!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, douchenozzle, that's not what I said, but thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s *exactly* what you said. You immediately went to gays even though millions of heterosexual people have AIDS. Oops.
Click to expand...


Seawytch IS gay.
P@triot


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> What about TBK?


TBK? You mean BTK?


----------



## P@triot

MeBelle said:


> Seawytch IS gay. P@triot


Uh...yeah. Well aware of that. Have been for almost a decade now.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wherever the left-wing ideology reigns - society rapidly becomes a cesspool. Think of the serial killers _just_ form Los Angeles
> 
> 
> 
> What...tim mcveigh?
Click to expand...

Tim McVeigh *isn’t* a serial killer.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> What about TBK? ted bundy? tim mcveigh? Or dick cheney?



Or Andrew McCabe? Peter Strzok? barack obama? Worst of the worst as criminals go.


----------



## P@triot

The shithole state of California strikes again. Nobody knows how to eliminate jobs, tax revenue, and prosperity like the Dumbocrats...








						Elon Musk 'immediately' moving Tesla HQ to freedom-loving state like Texas over oppressive Calif. lockdown
					

'Frankly, this is the final straw'




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

P@triot said:


> The shithole state of California strikes again. Nobody knows how to eliminate jobs, tax revenue, and prosperity like the Dumbocrats...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk 'immediately' moving Tesla HQ to freedom-loving state like Texas over oppressive Calif. lockdown
> 
> 
> 'Frankly, this is the final straw'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com



First Tesla, then SpaceX


----------



## Uncensored2008

MeBelle said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease. I know you want to punish gays for being gay, but California said "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ho....ly.....shit. Heterophobe here just exposed her true views.
> 
> *1.* Only fags have AIDS (in her mind)
> 
> *2.* Fags _intentionally_ spread AIDS to others (in her mind)
> 
> *3.* It was legally attempted murder in California for a long time - so that extreme left-wing state “wanted to punish” fags for decades!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, douchenozzle, that's not what I said, but thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s *exactly* what you said. You immediately went to gays even though millions of heterosexual people have AIDS. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seawytch IS gay.
> P@triot
Click to expand...


Far worse, she is a communist


----------



## Seawytch

Uncensored2008 said:


> MeBelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still a crime to knowingly infect someone with HIV. It is simply not MORE criminal than if you had any other communicable disease. I know you want to punish gays for being gay, but California said "no".
> 
> 
> 
> Ho....ly.....shit. Heterophobe here just exposed her true views.
> 
> *1.* Only fags have AIDS (in her mind)
> 
> *2.* Fags _intentionally_ spread AIDS to others (in her mind)
> 
> *3.* It was legally attempted murder in California for a long time - so that extreme left-wing state “wanted to punish” fags for decades!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, douchenozzle, that's not what I said, but thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s *exactly* what you said. You immediately went to gays even though millions of heterosexual people have AIDS. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seawytch IS gay.
> P@triot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far worse, she is a communist
Click to expand...

 No, but you are a crazy person.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Seawytch said:


> No, but you are a crazy person.



Sure Comrade.


Taxpayer funded medical care for anyone, citizen or not - particularly for illegal aliens
"free" college so we have more "ethnic studies" baristas 
Guaranteed monthly income, no need to work
Yeah, not Communist at all...


----------



## Seawytch

Uncensored2008 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you are a crazy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Comrade.
> 
> 
> Taxpayer funded medical care for anyone, citizen or not - particularly for illegal aliens
> "free" college so we have more "ethnic studies" baristas
> Guaranteed monthly income, no need to work
> Yeah, not Communist at all...
Click to expand...

First, learn the difference between socialism and communism. Once you have those down maybe you can learn the difference between socialism and Democratic socialism. 

Not sure though if the voices in your head let you learn anything new.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you are a crazy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Comrade.
> 
> 
> Taxpayer funded medical care for anyone, citizen or not - particularly for illegal aliens
> "free" college so we have more "ethnic studies" baristas
> Guaranteed monthly income, no need to work
> Yeah, not Communist at all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, learn the difference between socialism and communism. Once you have those down maybe you can learn the difference between socialism and Democratic socialism.
> 
> Not sure though if the voices in your head let you learn anything new.
Click to expand...

The only difference between socialism and communism is in the degree of ruthlessness with which it's adherents enforce it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Seawytch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you are a crazy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Comrade.
> 
> 
> Taxpayer funded medical care for anyone, citizen or not - particularly for illegal aliens
> "free" college so we have more "ethnic studies" baristas
> Guaranteed monthly income, no need to work
> Yeah, not Communist at all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, learn the difference between socialism and communism. Once you have those down maybe you can learn the difference between socialism and Democratic socialism.
> 
> Not sure though if the voices in your head let you learn anything new.
Click to expand...




Oh goddamn, a Marxist who has NEVER read Marx want's to lecture on the difference between socialism and communism... 

No  dumbass, socialism is the transitional phase between capitalism and communism - a transition that just never seems to transform - EVER.  You are a communist - you are an advocate of Marx, regardless of whether you're so ignorant that you don't grasp the source of the idiocy that you vomit out or not.

Look, as a communist, you want everything handed to you with no effort on your part, so here - educate yourself at no cost.

THIS is what you promote;



			https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> The only difference between socialism and communism is in the degree of ruthlessness with which it's adherents enforce it.



Communism is a myth, like heaven or nirvana, a paradise that will never and can never exist. It's the promise that keeps the stupid obedient. 

And then the state fades away and all the good little boys and girls share everything because they want to...

Yeah, right.....

Socialists are the most dishonest, greediest, selfish, laziest, callous fuckers on the face of the earth - they are TOTALLY going to become selfless saints working for the good of others......


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> ...maybe you can learn the difference between socialism and Democratic socialism.


And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously about _anything_...


----------



## Seawytch

Uncensored2008 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you are a crazy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Comrade.
> 
> 
> Taxpayer funded medical care for anyone, citizen or not - particularly for illegal aliens
> "free" college so we have more "ethnic studies" baristas
> Guaranteed monthly income, no need to work
> Yeah, not Communist at all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, learn the difference between socialism and communism. Once you have those down maybe you can learn the difference between socialism and Democratic socialism.
> 
> Not sure though if the voices in your head let you learn anything new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goddamn, a Marxist who has NEVER read Marx want's to lecture on the difference between socialism and communism...
> 
> No  dumbass, socialism is the transitional phase between capitalism and communism - a transition that just never seems to transform - EVER.  You are a communist - you are an advocate of Marx, regardless of whether you're so ignorant that you don't grasp the source of the idiocy that you vomit out or not.
> 
> Look, as a communist, you want everything handed to you with no effort on your part, so here - educate yourself at no cost.
> 
> THIS is what you promote;
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
Click to expand...

You could have just said you were too crazy to learn anything new. Would have saved you all the insane typing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Seawytch said:


> You could have just said you were too crazy to learn anything new. Would have saved you all the insane typing.



How does your ignorance and outright stupidity make me crazy? 

Do you HONESTLY think Bernie thought all this shit up? I know you've never heard of Hegel (nor Nietzsche not Kant, et al). Though he is the source of all you espouse and believe, you've never bothered to read Marx directly, you just vomit out the paraphrasing of Bernie and AOC. 

You're really quite stupid, and abysmally educated.

You could be the siamese twin of Pogo


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> The shithole state of California strikes again. Nobody knows how to eliminate jobs, tax revenue, and prosperity like the Dumbocrats...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk 'immediately' moving Tesla HQ to freedom-loving state like Texas over oppressive Calif. lockdown
> 
> 
> 'Frankly, this is the final straw'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com




Good luck with that.


----------



## Seawytch

Uncensored2008 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could have just said you were too crazy to learn anything new. Would have saved you all the insane typing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does your ignorance and outright stupidity make me crazy?
> 
> Do you HONESTLY think Bernie thought all this shit up? I know you've never heard of Hegel (nor Nietzsche not Kant, et al). Though he is the source of all you espouse and believe, you've never bothered to read Marx directly, you just vomit out the paraphrasing of Bernie and AOC.
> 
> You're really quite stupid, and abysmally educated.
> 
> You could be the siamese twin of Pogo
> 
> View attachment 335338
Click to expand...


Okay, crazy person.


----------



## P@triot

Half a *million* registered voters who are no longer legally able to vote. California is the _ultimate_ shithole.








						California's Dangerous Voting Experiment
					

“I signed an executive order that will allow every registered voter in California to receive a mail-in ballot,” Gov. Gavin Newsom says.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. ⁦‪Gavin Newsom‬⁩ and the ⁦‪Dumbocrats‬⁩ realize that they need an ignorant electorate and illegal aliens to win elections. This kills two birds with one stone.








						Gov. Gavin Newsom to give illegal immigrants $75 million in stimulus money despite cutting $19 billion from schools
					

California is projected to have a budget deficit of $54.3 billion




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. ⁦‪Gavin Newsom‬⁩ and the ⁦‪Dumbocrats‬⁩ realize that they need an ignorant electorate and illegal aliens to win elections. This kills two birds with one stone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gov. Gavin Newsom to give illegal immigrants $75 million in stimulus money despite cutting $19 billion from schools
> 
> 
> California is projected to have a budget deficit of $54.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com



"ignorant electorate?

trump loves the poorly educated like you.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. ⁦‪Gavin Newsom‬⁩ and the ⁦‪Dumbocrats‬⁩ realize that they need an ignorant electorate and illegal aliens to win elections. This kills two birds with one stone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gov. Gavin Newsom to give illegal immigrants $75 million in stimulus money despite cutting $19 billion from schools
> 
> 
> California is projected to have a budget deficit of $54.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "ignorant electorate?
Click to expand...

Yes snowflake, an ignorant electorate. That’s what the Dumbocrats *need* to survive. It’s why they have destroyed the education system in the U.S.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. How many men, women, and children have suffered horrific violence because the left doesn’t believe in law and order or law enforcement? Too many. Far too many.








						California man allegedly proceeded to strangle a child just 10 minutes after being released from jail
					

He wasted no time




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shit-hole state of California strikes again. ⁦‪Gavin Newsom‬⁩ and the ⁦‪Dumbocrats‬⁩ realize that they need an ignorant electorate and illegal aliens to win elections. This kills two birds with one stone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gov. Gavin Newsom to give illegal immigrants $75 million in stimulus money despite cutting $19 billion from schools
> 
> 
> California is projected to have a budget deficit of $54.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "ignorant electorate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes snowflake, an ignorant electorate. That’s what the Dumbocrats *need* to survive. It’s why they have destroyed the education system in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Sure wingnut, I would compare educational achievements of Blue states over red ones. You going to liberty college over MIT?


----------



## otto105

Lets look at that educational system in red kansas...

A man in Kansas consumed cleaning products over the weekend, according to a state health official, days after President Trump floated the idea of possibly using disinfectants as treatments for the coronavirus.

The Kansas Poison Control Center had seen a more than 40% increase in cases about cleaning products, the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment Lee Norman said at a Monday briefing.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Sure wingnut, I would compare educational achievements of Blue states over red ones. You going to liberty college over MIT?


Sure wingnut. Want to compare inner-city liberal schools to conservative schools? You going to public school in South-Central Los Angeles over _any_ public school in North Dakota? How about Detroit public schools, asshat?

Don’t talk to me about MIT - the academic “achievement” of the left is Compton, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, and the rest of the miserable shit-hole schools that produces illiterate left-wing voters.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure wingnut, I would compare educational achievements of Blue states over red ones. You going to liberty college over MIT?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure wingnut. Want to compare inner-city liberal schools to conservative schools? You going to public school in South-Central Los Angeles over _any_ public school in North Dakota? How about Detroit public schools, asshat?
> 
> Don’t talk to me about MIT - the academic “achievement” of the left is Compton, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, and the rest of the miserable shit-hole schools that produces illiterate left-wing voters.
Click to expand...


Any school in those areas is better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t talk to me about MIT - the academic “achievement” of the left is Compton, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, and the rest of the miserable shit-hole schools that produces illiterate left-wing voters.
> 
> 
> 
> Any school in those areas is better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Any school in those areas *is* better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.


I can see why you think that... (psst...”*are* better”, Otto)


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Any school in those areas is better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.


All test scores indicate otherwise...


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any school in those areas *is* better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you think that... (psst...”*are* better”, Otto)
> View attachment 338485
Click to expand...


Greeat, the greeeaattt god of the internet English strikes again...


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any school in those areas is better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.
> 
> 
> 
> All test scores indicate otherwise...
Click to expand...


For what? Belief in creation theology as science?


----------



## otto105

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any school in those areas is better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.
> 
> 
> 
> All test scores indicate otherwise...
> 
> 
> For what? Belief in creation theology as science?
> 
> Or making kids move to more Liberal population centers to escape the red...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any school in those areas is better than any school in deep red christian theology crap holes.
> 
> 
> 
> All test scores indicate otherwise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For what? Belief in creation theology as science?
Click to expand...

Snowflake, this is a _terrible_ hill to die on. Schools systems in Dumbocrat-controlled districts are abysmal and everybody knows it. Their test scores are an absolute embarrassment and their “graduates” are illiterate. They literally can’t even speak English. Almost all of them speak some fucked up form of ghetto Ebonics.

Show me any city run by Dumbocrats and I’ll show you a third-world shit-hole every time.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...


----------



## TheParser

I have lived in California all my 83 years.

Yes, things are really tough now for ordinary folks. Many people working here  in the city of Los Angeles have to commute for hours because  renting even a half-way decent apartment in the city proper is beyond the means of many people.

In my opinion, the saddest thing has been the deterioration of San Francisco. It was once such a nice and pleasant and clean  and charming city (cable cars, hilltop hotels, nice zoo, exotic Chinatown, etc.). Today it is, well, you know.

If you can afford to live in one of the nicer areas of California, it is still a wonderful place for at least one reason: the sunshine, especially here in So(uthern)Cal(ifornia).  I do not understand how people in other states can tolerate snow, heavy rains, tornadoes, hurricanes, oppressive heat, etc.

The liberals here have done a lot of good things.  And bad things. Hopefully, California someday can find its way back to the middle of the road.


----------



## P@triot

TheParser said:


> I have lived in California all my 83 years.


83 years. That’s awesome. Glad you are here with us on USMB.


----------



## P@triot

I’m not the least bit surprised that someone _this_ stupid is from California 








						Alleged looter brags about stolen merchandise. Social media does its thing. Now police are on the hunt.
					

Stupid is as stupid does




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Corazon

P@triot said:


> I’m not the least bit surprised that someone _this_ stupid is from California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alleged looter brags about stolen merchandise. Social media does its thing. Now police are on the hunt.
> 
> 
> Stupid is as stupid does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com


What the hell...this is beyond ridiculous


----------



## P@triot

Nothing screams "tolerance" like complete and total intolerance. Time for the _entire_ U.S. to boycott the shit-hole state of California...








						In the Name of Tolerance, California Blacklists Idaho
					

California takes a swing at Idaho for passing a pro-woman law that protects girls in sports, calling it "discriminatory." This is anti-feminist.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again...








						Hollywood Apocalypse: The rich and famous are fleeing in droves
					

CAROLINE GRAHAM: The pandemic has made many in Hollywood realise they don't need to live in LA - or anywhere near it - to keep working.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Tax Man

TheParser said:


> I have lived in California all my 83 years.
> 
> Yes, things are really tough now for ordinary folks. Many people working here  in the city of Los Angeles have to commute for hours because  renting even a half-way decent apartment in the city proper is beyond the means of many people.
> 
> In my opinion, the saddest thing has been the deterioration of San Francisco. It was once such a nice and pleasant and clean  and charming city (cable cars, hilltop hotels, nice zoo, exotic Chinatown, etc.). Today it is, well, you know.
> 
> If you can afford to live in one of the nicer areas of California, it is still a wonderful place for at least one reason: the sunshine, especially here in So(uthern)Cal(ifornia).  I do not understand how people in other states can tolerate snow, heavy rains, tornadoes, hurricanes, oppressive heat, etc.
> 
> The liberals here have done a lot of good things.  And bad things. Hopefully, California someday can find its way back to the middle of the road.


In my 70 years in California I have witnessed the the capitalists screw up the housing market and how people have to live. As so much is out of reach for Californians it is only just that they shit on capitalists.


----------



## percysunshine

Tax Man said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have lived in California all my 83 years.
> 
> Yes, things are really tough now for ordinary folks. Many people working here  in the city of Los Angeles have to commute for hours because  renting even a half-way decent apartment in the city proper is beyond the means of many people.
> 
> In my opinion, the saddest thing has been the deterioration of San Francisco. It was once such a nice and pleasant and clean  and charming city (cable cars, hilltop hotels, nice zoo, exotic Chinatown, etc.). Today it is, well, you know.
> 
> If you can afford to live in one of the nicer areas of California, it is still a wonderful place for at least one reason: the sunshine, especially here in So(uthern)Cal(ifornia).  I do not understand how people in other states can tolerate snow, heavy rains, tornadoes, hurricanes, oppressive heat, etc.
> 
> The liberals here have done a lot of good things.  And bad things. Hopefully, California someday can find its way back to the middle of the road.
> 
> 
> 
> In my 70 years in California I have witnessed the the capitalists screw up the housing market and how people have to live. As so much is out of reach for Californians it is only just that they shit on capitalists.
Click to expand...


Keep re-electing the same people...keep getting the same thing.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> In my 70 years in California I have witnessed the the capitalists screw up the housing market and how people have to live. As so much is out of reach for Californians it is only just that they shit on capitalists.


Nah. You saw failed left-wing socialism "screw up" the housing market and how people live.

It's ok, at your age it's easy to mix up facts and confuse what you meant to say. Joe Biden does it every sentence, so don't feel bad!


----------



## P@triot

When you punish producers/innovators to reward the idle and incompetent with heroin needles and healthcare, you expand failure (which is exactly what the Dumbocrats want - to expand the people dependent on government):








						San Francisco's Progressive Policies Made Homelessness Crisis Worse
					

A new documentary shows how progressive policies have resulted in a system of incredible cruelty, with record-high levels of homelessness and addiction.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my 70 years in California I have witnessed the the capitalists screw up the housing market and how people have to live. As so much is out of reach for Californians it is only just that they shit on capitalists.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You saw failed left-wing socialism "screw up" the housing market and how people live.
> 
> It's ok, at your age it's easy to mix up facts and confuse what you meant to say. Joe Biden does it every sentence, so don't feel bad!
Click to expand...

What I saw was Ronnie Ray Goon and Arnie ruin a fine ste along with pete the cheat wilson and George jokemajin. GRay Davis had us on the correct path but the dumb cons got a recall going and we screwed ourselfs again. 
I have not seen how socialism buys housing and then turns it into profits for only one person.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> When you punish producers/innovators to reward the idle and incompetent with heroin needles and healthcare, you expand failure (which is exactly what the Dumbocrats want - to expand the people dependent on government):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco's Progressive Policies Made Homelessness Crisis Worse
> 
> 
> A new documentary shows how progressive policies have resulted in a system of incredible cruelty, with record-high levels of homelessness and addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


You have swallowed the conservative cock in total.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you punish producers/innovators to reward the idle and incompetent with heroin needles and healthcare, you expand failure (which is exactly what the Dumbocrats want - to expand the people dependent on government):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco's Progressive Policies Made Homelessness Crisis Worse
> 
> 
> A new documentary shows how progressive policies have resulted in a system of incredible cruelty, with record-high levels of homelessness and addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have swallowed the conservative cock in total.
Click to expand...


   And you've taken dozens of diseased liberal cocks up the ass and beg for more.


----------



## Tax Man

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you punish producers/innovators to reward the idle and incompetent with heroin needles and healthcare, you expand failure (which is exactly what the Dumbocrats want - to expand the people dependent on government):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco's Progressive Policies Made Homelessness Crisis Worse
> 
> 
> A new documentary shows how progressive policies have resulted in a system of incredible cruelty, with record-high levels of homelessness and addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have swallowed the conservative cock in total.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you've taken dozens of diseased liberal cocks up the ass and beg for more.
Click to expand...

That is what tezassns are for!


----------



## P@triot

Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...








						Why I'm Leaving California
					

I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## protectionist

P@triot said:


> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


It boggles my mind to to see an article entitled _"Why I'm Leaving California"_, when I left there 31 years ago, and would have left sooner, if not for business entanglements.


----------



## Kondor3

P@triot said:


> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


Now, now... temper, temper... those are *First* World $hithole$ occupied by bloodlines from Third World $hithole$ fresh out of the Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer stage ;-)


----------



## Uncensored2008

P@triot said:


> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com



Problem is those who left California destroyed Nevada, Arizona, and Texas by taking what they were fleeing with them.

Years ago some conservatives would wounder why I said the democrats were flat out Communists - not anymore, but even a decade back. It's because I live in California, I've seen the greatest state in the nation, the state of Nixon, Reagan, and Dukmajian turned into North Korea. And now I see it happening again - by the Communists, by the democrats. Communism is a cancer which is 100% fatal.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is those who left California destroyed Nevada, Arizona, and Texas by taking what they were fleeing with them.
> 
> Years ago some conservatives would wounder why I said the democrats were flat out Communists - not anymore, but even a decade back. It's because I live in California, I've seen the greatest state in the nation, the state of Nixon, Reagan, and Dukmajian turned into North Korea. And now I see it happening again - by the Communists, by the democrats. Communism is a cancer which is 100% fatal.
Click to expand...

The Californicators also destroyed Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Nevada.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> The Californicators also destroyed Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Nevada.


You speak the truth. And what do they do after they destroy a state? They going running to a conservative state (like Texas or Florida) because that's where the jobs and prosperity are. But they bring their ignorant, failed, left-wing policies with them and then burn their new state to the ground. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.


----------



## danielpalos

California has the largest economy in the Union. How is that destroying our State?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> California has the largest economy in the Union. How is that destroying our State?


California is the third largest state by land and the largest state by population - so of course the economy will be large.

With their natural resources (climate, coast, land, oil, etc.) creating unimaginable opportunities for agriculture, energy, and tourism, there is 0 excuse for California not being the #1 economy in the _world_.

Instead it is an absolute shit-hole of crime (South Central Los Angeles), poverty (homeless in San Francisco), and misery.


----------



## Ame®icano

Uncensored2008 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is those who left California destroyed Nevada, Arizona, and Texas by taking what they were fleeing with them.
> 
> Years ago some conservatives would wounder why I said the democrats were flat out Communists - not anymore, but even a decade back. It's because I live in California, I've seen the greatest state in the nation, the state of Nixon, Reagan, and Dukmajian turned into North Korea. And now I see it happening again - by the Communists, by the democrats. Communism is a cancer which is 100% fatal.
Click to expand...


The reason they're feeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.


----------



## danielpalos

Ame®icano said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is those who left California destroyed Nevada, Arizona, and Texas by taking what they were fleeing with them.
> 
> Years ago some conservatives would wounder why I said the democrats were flat out Communists - not anymore, but even a decade back. It's because I live in California, I've seen the greatest state in the nation, the state of Nixon, Reagan, and Dukmajian turned into North Korea. And now I see it happening again - by the Communists, by the democrats. Communism is a cancer which is 100% fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason they're feeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
Click to expand...

Lower cost of living, usually.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
Click to expand...

So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?

Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...








						Why Natural Gas Appliance Bans Are Bad Economic, Environmental Policy
					

Protecting public health is critically important, of course, but that doesn’t mean that natural gas appliance bans are the answer.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## basquebromance

the entire country hates california, even californians themselves


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_... And the Dumbocrats continue to embrace Nazi fascism.








						California Banning ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ And Other Books Because Racism And Stuff
					

Can banning classic novels cure racism?




					redstate.com


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?
> 
> Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.
Click to expand...

No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.


----------



## Harry Dresden

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?
> 
> Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
Click to expand...

you dont even know what that means do you danny?...


----------



## danielpalos

Harry Dresden said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?
> 
> Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont even know what that means do you danny?...
Click to expand...

I know you only have an ad hominem not any form of valid rebuttal.  Parler misses you.


----------



## Harry Dresden

danielpalos said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?
> 
> Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont even know what that means do you danny?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you only have an ad hominem not any form of valid rebuttal.  Parler misses you.
Click to expand...

how can they miss me when i have never been there?...the i dont know what i am talking about forum misses you...


----------



## danielpalos

Harry Dresden said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?
> 
> Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont even know what that means do you danny?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you only have an ad hominem not any form of valid rebuttal.  Parler misses you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can they miss me when i have never been there?...the i dont know what i am talking about forum misses you...
Click to expand...

lol.  Your mistake not mine.  I resorted to the fewest fallacies, that makes me Right even though I am on the left.


----------



## Harry Dresden

danielpalos said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?
> 
> Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont even know what that means do you danny?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you only have an ad hominem not any form of valid rebuttal.  Parler misses you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can they miss me when i have never been there?...the i dont know what i am talking about forum misses you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Your mistake not mine.  I resorted to the fewest fallacies, that makes me Right even though I am on the left.
Click to expand...

sure you do danny....


----------



## Tax Man

danielpalos said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason they're fleeing to conservative states, or cities, is because those are only places that they aren't fucked up with their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> *Lower cost of living, usually*.  California has the largest economy in the US.  No one actually thinks right wing States are better, just cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that left-wing states are failed states that nobody can afford to live in?
> 
> Also, in your bullshit propaganda you failed to mention the *truth*. Nobody leaves because of “cost of living”. The leave because of _jobs_. Left-wing states don’t have them. Right-wing states are abundant with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont even know what that means do you danny?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you only have an ad hominem not any form of valid rebuttal.  Parler misses you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can they miss me when i have never been there?...the i dont know what i am talking about forum misses you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Your mistake not mine.  I resorted to the fewest fallacies, that makes me Right even though I am on the left.
Click to expand...

The word is CORRECT not reich!


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


Great job by the GOP by refusing a good ID card to end illegal immigration forever period that would be communism lol, and also the only solution that has worked in every other country that needed to do it and no it's not communism, brainwashed functional moron.... You're talking about Democratic cities that are filled with blacks and browns that the GOP loves discriminating against along with everyone else who doesn't have money. Try a living wage health Care daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and mainly taxing the rich more like their fair share like every other modern country and see how the blacks and browns do.  While you're at it end the war on drugs which is really a war on blacks and browns LOL. Brainwashed functional idiot. Of course we need to tax the rich so we can invest in this stuff that would make us a civilized country instead of a greedy idiot lying GOP mess.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.


Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.


----------



## Harry Dresden

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
Click to expand...

he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....


----------



## P@triot

Harry Dresden said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....
Click to expand...

And it doesn’t even make sense. He has “equal protection under the law”. But he wants unemployment for quitting his job. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.


----------



## wamose

What would Ward Cleaver say if he could see California today? What a freefall they took.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
Click to expand...

Parler misses your "gospel Truth"; it just seems like nothing but fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem or irrelevance) here.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it doesn’t even make sense. He has “equal protection under the law”. But he wants unemployment for quitting his job. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Click to expand...

Proof right wingers don't care about the law.  Equal protection of the law means you can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; without any legal or moral prejudice.

Merely using Capitalism for _all_ of its capital worth, what a concept.  Capitalism, what is That sayeth the Right Wing when not in socialism threads.


----------



## Harry Dresden

P@triot said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it doesn’t even make sense. He has “equal protection under the law”. But he wants unemployment for quitting his job. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Click to expand...

he has said before if you dont want to work you should still get some kind of pay to not work...the guy hasnt been out in the world yet...


----------



## Harry Dresden

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it doesn’t even make sense. He has “equal protection under the law”. But he wants unemployment for quitting his job. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers don't care about the law.  Equal protection of the law means you can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; without any legal or moral prejudice.
> 
> Merely using Capitalism for _all_ of its capital worth, what a concept.  Capitalism, what is That sayeth the Right Wing when not in socialism threads.
Click to expand...

see he thinks you should get paid just because....you dont want to work....


----------



## danielpalos

Harry Dresden said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it doesn’t even make sense. He has “equal protection under the law”. But he wants unemployment for quitting his job. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers don't care about the law.  Equal protection of the law means you can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; without any legal or moral prejudice.
> 
> Merely using Capitalism for _all_ of its capital worth, what a concept.  Capitalism, what is That sayeth the Right Wing when not in socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see he thinks you should get paid just because....you dont want to work....
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the laws, what a concept; employers are not required to hire even in alleged Right to Work States.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Proof right wingers don't care about the law.  Equal protection of the law means you can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; without any legal or moral prejudice.


That's not what "equal protection under the law" means at all, you high school dropout 

Equal protection under the law means that if you are held to a standard under the law, John Doe is also held to that same standard, as is Jane Doe, and so on and so on and so on. It means everyone has the same protections and the same consequences.

It doesn't mean "if we have law XYZ, we should have an opposite law ZYX because I think so" 

You are so damn dumb, it actually horrifies me.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Equal protection of the laws, what a concept; employers are not required to hire even in alleged Right to Work States.


Right. Why should an employer be "required to hire"? That makes zero sense.

And your demand to be able to be paid to quit your job is *not* "equal protection under the law". It's not even close. You heard a term and now you're trying to use it in hopes of getting everyone to think you are "smart".

But it's having the opposite affect. For starters, we are already know you're dumb as a pile of shit on a San Francisco street. Secondly, you're not using the term correctly. So it's making things worse for you.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Great job by the GOP by refusing a good ID card to end illegal immigration forever


And....um.....how would an "ID card" _end_ illegal immigration?!? 

If they won't even come into the country legally, why the fuck would they sign up for an ID card legally or carry it legally? 

You are so damn dumb, it takes my breath away.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a city or state run by Dumbocrats and I'll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why I'm Leaving California
> 
> 
> I want my kids to grow up in a community with a future, with more freedom and safety than I grew up with. California makes that impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about Democratic cities that are filled with blacks and browns that the GOP loves discriminating against along with everyone else who doesn't have money.
Click to expand...

Folks...you can't make this up. He admits the are "Democrat cities" but then blames the GOP for the results. 

At least he recognized that it is policies designed to keep "blacks and browns" in poverty, and thus on the government plantation, is the cause. Now if he could only bring himself to admit that it is the racist Dumbocrats who are in control and have issued those policies.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Try a living wage


If you don't feel your wage is a wage that you can live off of, then get another job that pays more. That's the incentive to keep pushing and keep working. Without that, everyone becomes a lazy, useless, parasite like you - just mooching off of government.


francoHFW said:


> health Care


1. Healthcare is one word, you fuck'n high school dropout
2. Even working the counter at McDonald's comes with excellent healthcare benefits.


francoHFW said:


> daycare


Why the fuck am I paying you a wage if I'm going to pay for your life expenses as well. Take the wage I gave you in exchange for work, and pay your own fuck'n daycare. That's why I pay you in the first place, stupid.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Of course we need to tax the rich so we can invest in this stuff that would make us a civilized country instead of a greedy idiot lying GOP mess.


Says the selfish, _greedy_, lying parasite who wants to mooch off of others. Look, you assholes have already soaked the rich in taxes, more taxes, higher taxes, and additional taxes. It's time we give them massive tax relief, and make parasites like you pay _your_ fair share.

The top 1% earns 13% of all income, but pays a staggering 22% of all taxes because parasites like you refuse to pay your fair share.


----------



## HenryBHough

California will not increase income taxes this year.

Instead they'll mandate $10,000 exit permits for those fleeing.

But any revenue from it will be used to build a wall to keep people IN.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof right wingers don't care about the law.  Equal protection of the law means you can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; without any legal or moral prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what "equal protection under the law" means at all, you high school dropout
> 
> Equal protection under the law means that if you are held to a standard under the law, John Doe is also held to that same standard, as is Jane Doe, and so on and so on and so on. It means everyone has the same protections and the same consequences.
> 
> It doesn't mean "if we have law XYZ, we should have an opposite law ZYX because I think so"
> 
> You are so damn dumb, it actually horrifies me.
Click to expand...

lol.  The standard law in this case is employment at will.  The State has no authority to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Right. Why should an employer be "required to hire"? That makes zero sense.


So does requiring an work ethic in an allegedly at-will employment State.  Right wingers have no sense.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we need to tax the rich so we can invest in this stuff that would make us a civilized country instead of a greedy idiot lying GOP mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the selfish, _greedy_, lying parasite who wants to mooch off of others. Look, you assholes have already soaked the rich in taxes, more taxes, higher taxes, and additional taxes. It's time we give them massive tax relief, and make parasites like you pay _your_ fair share.
> 
> The top 1% earns 13% of all income, but pays a staggering 22% of all taxes because parasites like you refuse to pay your fair share.
> 
> View attachment 418930
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we need to tax the rich so we can invest in this stuff that would make us a civilized country instead of a greedy idiot lying GOP mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the selfish, _greedy_, lying parasite who wants to mooch off of others. Look, you assholes have already soaked the rich in taxes, more taxes, higher taxes, and additional taxes. It's time we give them massive tax relief, and make parasites like you pay _your_ fair share.
> 
> The top 1% earns 13% of all income, but pays a staggering 22% of all taxes because parasites like you refuse to pay your fair share.
> 
> View attachment 418930
Click to expand...

Income from investments and government benefits is not considered earned income.--Investopedia


----------



## Rambunctious

SF and LA both announced they will have to force 45% of their rapid transit employees to retire due to a lack of funds....dems hard at work.....


----------



## danielpalos

Rambunctious said:


> SF and LA both announced they will have to force 45% of their rapid transit employees to retire due to a lack of funds....dems hard at work.....


link, or it is just right wing fantasy, like usual.


----------



## Dick Foster

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


Pick almost any two from the heatland or the south.


----------



## Rambunctious

danielpalos said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> SF and LA both announced they will have to force 45% of their rapid transit employees to retire due to a lack of funds....dems hard at work.....
> 
> 
> 
> link, or it is just right wing fantasy, like usual.
Click to expand...

It was just on an ABC radio news break.....so take a link and shove it up your ass....


----------



## Rambunctious

Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....









						BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
					

BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...




					www.sfchronicle.com


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great job by the GOP by refusing a good ID card to end illegal immigration forever
> 
> 
> 
> And....um.....how would an "ID card" _end_ illegal immigration?!?
> 
> If they won't even come into the country legally, why the fuck would they sign up for an ID card legally or carry it legally?
> 
> You are so damn dumb, it takes my breath away.
Click to expand...

Well nowadays they just fake social security cards etc get jobs pay taxes own homes period it works everywhere else dumbass . It's called getting organized instead of being hornswoggled by GOP greedy idiot rich, dumbass. If they can't work they don't come do you need a diagram? Jesus Christ you're dumb. Oops brainwashed functionally dumb....


----------



## danielpalos

Time to stimulate the economy through infrastructure upgrades!


----------



## francoHFW

HenryBHough said:


> California will not increase income taxes this year.
> 
> Instead they'll mandate $10,000 exit permits for those fleeing.
> 
> But any revenue from it will be used to build a wall to keep people IN.


California like every other civilized area will be just fine when the GOP stops wrecking the world economy every chance they get. Without propaganda they would be nowhere, brainwashed functional moron. California is a victim of its own success and the GOP refusal of a good ID card that would end illegal immigration just like every other modern country. We could also do with a living wage healthcare daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations like every other modern country has.GOP voters are the most misinformed and brainwashed voters in the modern world by far absolute idiocy. And disaster.... By the way you can also blame the GOP policy on birth control for the billions of people in this world that are ruining it.


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
> 
> 
> BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com


So is the rest of the country for crying out loud dumbass. Thanks to the GOP and it's wonderful pandemic response that leads the world period into chaos and catastrophe..... The difference is in California you hear about it endlessly on your propaganda machine duh.


----------



## Rambunctious

francoHFW said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
> 
> 
> BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the rest of the country for crying out loud dumbass. Thanks to the GOP and it's wonderful pandemic response that leads the world period into chaos and catastrophe..... The difference is in California you hear about it endlessly on your propaganda machine duh.
Click to expand...

Red states are breaking records for growth...blue states are all in financial straits...do some homework and stop guessing....because you always guess wrong.....


----------



## francoHFW

danielpalos said:


> Time to stimulate the economy through infrastructure upgrades!


and taxing the rich more like their fair share so we can invest in cheap college and training for opportunity. 6 million jobs going begging in the tech sector..... Go Joe!


----------



## Agit8r

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
Click to expand...


Location, location, location, as they say.


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> I resorted to the fewest fallacies, that makes me Right even though I am on the left.


Your entire premise is based on fallacies. You shouldn't have dropped out so early.


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
> 
> 
> BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the rest of the country for crying out loud dumbass. Thanks to the GOP and it's wonderful pandemic response that leads the world period into chaos and catastrophe..... The difference is in California you hear about it endlessly on your propaganda machine duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red states are breaking records for growth...blue states are all in financial straits...do some homework and stop guessing....because you always guess wrong.....
Click to expand...

 red States lead in Growth of the death rolls.... You believe more crap LOL. Yes yes we are so jealous of Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma The Dakotas etc etc. They are the welfare states of the United States..... And don't seem to give a damn about their citizens....


----------



## Rambunctious

francoHFW said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to stimulate the economy through infrastructure upgrades!
> 
> 
> 
> and taxing the rich more like their fair share so we can invest in cheap college and training for opportunity. 6 million jobs going begging in the tech sector..... Go Joe!
Click to expand...

You can't balance the books by taxing rich folks...they will just move their money so it can't be taxed...and then its your and my turn to make up the difference....if the people thought socialism was great they wouldn't have voted all of the dems out of the house last month.....you progs suffered a bigger defeat than we did you just don't know it yet....


----------



## Harry Dresden

P@triot said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it doesn’t even make sense. He has “equal protection under the law”. But he wants unemployment for quitting his job. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Click to expand...

whats funny is the phony tax man gave me a thumps down for saying something against his son....but gives you a pass for doing the same thing.....it must have been something i said in the past...lol..


----------



## Rambunctious

francoHFW said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
> 
> 
> BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the rest of the country for crying out loud dumbass. Thanks to the GOP and it's wonderful pandemic response that leads the world period into chaos and catastrophe..... The difference is in California you hear about it endlessly on your propaganda machine duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red states are breaking records for growth...blue states are all in financial straits...do some homework and stop guessing....because you always guess wrong.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red States lead in Growth of the death rolls.... You believe more crap LOL. Yes yes we are so jealous of Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma The Dakotas etc etc. They are the welfare states of the United States..... And don't seem to give a damn about their citizens....
Click to expand...

So now you are switching the subject to covid????? Just like a libtard....


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we need to tax the rich so we can invest in this stuff that would make us a civilized country instead of a greedy idiot lying GOP mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the selfish, _greedy_, lying parasite who wants to mooch off of others. Look, you assholes have already soaked the rich in taxes, more taxes, higher taxes, and additional taxes. It's time we give them massive tax relief, and make parasites like you pay _your_ fair share.
> 
> The top 1% earns 13% of all income, but pays a staggering 22% of all taxes because parasites like you refuse to pay your fair share.
> 
> View attachment 418930
Click to expand...

All you can talk about is federal income tax, our only progressive tax which is no more than payroll taxes these days thanks to the GOP giveaway to the rich. We have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever because we can't invest in our infrastructure and workforce like every other modern country. We also are terminally stupid because of your terminally stupid propaganda and orange clown. Everything you know is wrong. LOL


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
> 
> 
> BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the rest of the country for crying out loud dumbass. Thanks to the GOP and it's wonderful pandemic response that leads the world period into chaos and catastrophe..... The difference is in California you hear about it endlessly on your propaganda machine duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red states are breaking records for growth...blue states are all in financial straits...do some homework and stop guessing....because you always guess wrong.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red States lead in Growth of the death rolls.... You believe more crap LOL. Yes yes we are so jealous of Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma The Dakotas etc etc. They are the welfare states of the United States..... And don't seem to give a damn about their citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you are switching the subject to covid????? Just like a libtard....
Click to expand...

I guess you don't know about that since the GOP propaganda machine calls it a hoax and you believe anything, brainwashed functional moron. And you probably don't wear a mask either right? You're a catastrophe. You also believe that Trump is a great businessman who has faced down China. LOL. well how is Hong Kong doing? Oh that's another thing Fox noise etc ignores. Along with our Farmers going out of business.... Change the channel and rejoin reality...


----------



## Rambunctious

francoHFW said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
> 
> 
> BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the rest of the country for crying out loud dumbass. Thanks to the GOP and it's wonderful pandemic response that leads the world period into chaos and catastrophe..... The difference is in California you hear about it endlessly on your propaganda machine duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red states are breaking records for growth...blue states are all in financial straits...do some homework and stop guessing....because you always guess wrong.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red States lead in Growth of the death rolls.... You believe more crap LOL. Yes yes we are so jealous of Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma The Dakotas etc etc. They are the welfare states of the United States..... And don't seem to give a damn about their citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you are switching the subject to covid????? Just like a libtard....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don't know about that since the GOP propaganda machine calls it a hoax and you believe anything, brainwashed functional moron. And you probably don't wear a mask either right? You're a catastrophe. You also believe that Trump is a great businessman who has faced down China. LOL. well how is Hong Kong doing? Oh that's another thing Fox noise etc ignores. Along with our Farmers going out of business.... Change the channel and rejoin reality...
Click to expand...

No one called corona a hoax...they called the reaction to it a hoax.....2 million dead????? buuuuaaaahahahahahahaha wear a mask and shut down????? but the new cases continue to rise????? buhhhhahahahaha
don't be a sheeple...live your life...stop allowing someone in DC or your state house that you never met run your life...be a man for crying out loud...you are such a pussy.....


----------



## francoHFW

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we need to tax the rich so we can invest in this stuff that would make us a civilized country instead of a greedy idiot lying GOP mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the selfish, _greedy_, lying parasite who wants to mooch off of others. Look, you assholes have already soaked the rich in taxes, more taxes, higher taxes, and additional taxes. It's time we give them massive tax relief, and make parasites like you pay _your_ fair share.
> 
> The top 1% earns 13% of all income, but pays a staggering 22% of all taxes because parasites like you refuse to pay your fair share.
> 
> View attachment 418930
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income from investments and government benefits is not considered earned income.--Investopedia
Click to expand...

Patriot, I am happily retired a****** and I'm worried about my fellow citizens and my country which you GOP brainwashed fools have allowed to be ruined the last forty years by the GOP giveaway to the rich period if you count all taxes instead of being a brainwashed functional moron who only cares about federal income taxes, we have a flat tax system which is a catastrophe for the country and the middle class. Google the only tax graph you need to know and stop being a fool oops brainwashed functional fool....


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today they took the action of firing 45% of their employees...get ready because it always starts with transit workers...then teachers and hospital workers....CA is headed for a depression...the signs are all over the place....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BART to slash costs, with possible service cuts, layoffs on horizon: ‘This is not sustainable’
> 
> 
> BART’s board approved a cost-cutting plan Thursday that includes an employee retirement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the rest of the country for crying out loud dumbass. Thanks to the GOP and it's wonderful pandemic response that leads the world period into chaos and catastrophe..... The difference is in California you hear about it endlessly on your propaganda machine duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red states are breaking records for growth...blue states are all in financial straits...do some homework and stop guessing....because you always guess wrong.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> red States lead in Growth of the death rolls.... You believe more crap LOL. Yes yes we are so jealous of Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma The Dakotas etc etc. They are the welfare states of the United States..... And don't seem to give a damn about their citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you are switching the subject to covid????? Just like a libtard....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you don't know about that since the GOP propaganda machine calls it a hoax and you believe anything, brainwashed functional moron. And you probably don't wear a mask either right? You're a catastrophe. You also believe that Trump is a great businessman who has faced down China. LOL. well how is Hong Kong doing? Oh that's another thing Fox noise etc ignores. Along with our Farmers going out of business.... Change the channel and rejoin reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one called corona a hoax...they called the reaction to it a hoax.....2 million dead????? buuuuaaaahahahahahahaha wear a mask and shut down????? but the new cases continue to rise????? buhhhhahahahaha
> don't be a sheeple...live your life...stop allowing someone in DC or your state house that you never met run your life...be a man for crying out loud...you are such a pussy.....
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. LOL oops brainwashed functional idiot. I live in a rural area that is 73% Trump and we have not gotten this yet period but it's coming right now dingbat period and it is coming from your stupid red States and your stupid Republicans everywhere. Oops brainwashed functionally stupid. You know every detail of hundreds of phony scandals that have been discredited but of course never retracted, but you know nothing about anything else. Great job!


----------



## francoHFW

Rambunctious said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to stimulate the economy through infrastructure upgrades!
> 
> 
> 
> and taxing the rich more like their fair share so we can invest in cheap college and training for opportunity. 6 million jobs going begging in the tech sector..... Go Joe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't balance the books by taxing rich folks...they will just move their money so it can't be taxed...and then its your and my turn to make up the difference....if the people thought socialism was great they wouldn't have voted all of the dems out of the house last month.....you progs suffered a bigger defeat than we did you just don't know it yet....
Click to expand...

Yes yes, Democrats lost because of total b******* about socialism and defund the police period in other words Fair capitalism and reforming the police. And a few other things that more than 60% of the people in the country want. The GOP base is now by far the most misinformed and ignorant voters in the modern world by far....they're not stupid because they know every detail of hundreds of ridiculous scandals and conspiracy theories but miss reality.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> If they can't work they don't come do you need a diagram?


Bwahahahaha!!! They didn’t come to “work”. They come for handouts, you f’ing high school dropout.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> While you're at it end the war on drugs which is *really a war on blacks and browns*.


Please note the racism by Franco there. He thinks blacks and hispanics are just strung out drug addicts.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Yes yes we are so jealous of Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma The Dakotas etc etc. They are the welfare states of the United States...


9 of the top 10 poorest counties in America are solid blue counties run by Dumbocrats. That includes the #1 poorest county in America - dark blue Sumter Country in “red” Alabama.


francoHFW said:


> And don't seem to give a damn about their citizens...


In other words, the uphold the constitution and provide liberty to their citizens. Something that pisses off fascists statists like Franco.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> and taxing the rich more like their fair share so we can invest in cheap college and training for opportunity.


*1.* Already covered your lies here in post #1179. The wealthy would need a massive tax break to pay their fair share and parasites like you would need a massive tax hike.

*2.* If you can’t afford college on your own, you’re an imbecile who shouldn’t be in college. I’m not hiring anyone who needed government to help them figure out how to get an educatio.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> and taxing the rich more like their fair share so we can invest in cheap college and training for opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Already covered your lies here in post #1179. The wealthy would need a massive tax break to pay their fair share and parasites like you would need a massive tax hike.
> 
> *2.* If you can’t afford college on your own, you’re an imbecile who shouldn’t be in college. I’m not hiring anyone who needed government to help them figure out how to get an educatio.
Click to expand...




P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> and taxing the rich more like their fair share so we can invest in cheap college and training for opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Already covered your lies here in post #1179. The wealthy would need a massive tax break to pay their fair share and parasites like you would need a massive tax hike.
> 
> *2.* If you can’t afford college on your own, you’re an imbecile who shouldn’t be in college. I’m not hiring anyone who needed government to help them figure out how to get an educatio.
Click to expand...

We have a flat tax system if you count all taxes, brainwashed functional moron. And the worst inequality and upward mobility ever anywhere. Wake up sleeping beauty. Google the only tax graph you need to know- statistics from the FBI prove it . Also that Donald Trump is the worst businessman ever along with worst president ever. Change the channel for Chrissake


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes we are so jealous of Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma The Dakotas etc etc. They are the welfare states of the United States...
> 
> 
> 
> 9 of the top 10 poorest counties in America are solid blue counties run by Dumbocrats. That includes the #1 poorest county in America - dark blue Sumter Country in “red” Alabama.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't seem to give a damn about their citizens...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, the uphold the constitution and provide liberty to their citizens. Something that pisses off fascists statists like Franco.
Click to expand...

Fascists are right wing dictatorship lovers like Trump. Those counties are all black areas ruined by GOP policy worse than even white trash GOP areas.... The GOP fights for your right to die without healthcare and work for seven and a quarter an hour . Idiots


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you're at it end the war on drugs which is *really a war on blacks and browns*.
> 
> 
> 
> Please note the racism by Franco there. He thinks blacks and hispanics are just strung out drug addicts.
Click to expand...

No more than whites are, but they are the ones who sell the drugs to whites from the suburbs and the sticks. The whole thing is a total mess. We should try taxing the rich their fair share and having an actual mental health system. Treatment instead of prison because the war on drugs is the biggest failure besides the GOP party itself. Change the channel dumbass


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't work they don't come do you need a diagram?
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahaha!!! They didn’t come to “work”. They come for handouts, you f’ing high school dropout.
Click to expand...

They don't get handouts except in brainwashed GOP minds. They get school lunches that's about it, brain washed functional moron. Pew research found that 94% of illegal males work, 67% pay taxes, and 35% own homes. Pass an ID card to end illegal immigration you idiots.


----------



## Harry Dresden

P@triot said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only admit equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation can make our State even greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Blah. Blah. Blah. You post that stupid fuck’n quote a hundred times per day. You’re *not* getting paid to quit your job, you lazy fuck’n parasite. So just give up on that idiotic pipe-dream already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he says the same shit no matter what the topic is....i believe he just learned it in his 10th grade civics class and feels it applies to everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it doesn’t even make sense. He has “equal protection under the law”. But he wants unemployment for quitting his job. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Click to expand...

whats funny is the phony tax man gave me a thumps down for saying something against his son....but gives you a pass for doing the same thing.....


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> We have a flat tax system if you count all taxes


I genuinely feel bad for Franco. He’s been duped into believing that the sky is green, the sun is cold, and voting against his own self-interests is “smart”.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Fascists are right wing dictatorship lovers like Trump.


Every time you post, you embarrass yourself further. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. It is totalitarianism. You *cannot* have small, limited government totalitarianism.








						Donald Trump: The 'Fascist' Who Cuts Taxes And Deregulates
					

Everybody knows by now that President Trump is a fascist. He's a Nazi just like the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12. We know this because... Read More




					www.investors.com


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Those counties are all black areas ruined by GOP policy worse than even white trash GOP areas...


Watching your turmoil over what you were duped into believing vs. the facts is quite fascinating. I can literally see your mental health deteriorating over it.

9 of the top 10 poorest counties in America are solid blue counties run by Dumbocrats. Detroit has had a Dumbocrat Mayor and a Dumbocrat-controlled city council for 71 years now. They had to file bankruptcy because the city has become such a shit-hole.

Those are the facts and they prove your ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> You also believe that Trump is a great businessman who has faced down China. LOL. well how is Hong Kong doing?


Donald Trump is *not* President of Hong Kong, stupid.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> And you probably don't wear a mask either right?


I don’t wear a mask. Only pussies wear masks for the flu.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Patriot, I am happily retired a******


Exactly. You live off of government while producing absolutely nothing.


francoHFW said:


> and I'm worried about my fellow citizens and my country


With good reason. You’re worried they both won’t be able to support you anymore due to *failed* left-wing policies.


francoHFW said:


> *we have a flat tax system* which is a catastrophe for the country and the middle class.


Unfortunately your low IQ prevents you from understanding what that means. We desperately need a flat-tax system. Unfortunately, we have an ignorant progressive tax system.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Yes yes, Democrats lost because of total b******* about *socialism* and defund the police period *in other words Fair capitalism* and reforming the police.


Franco views socialism as “fair capitalism” 

That’s like calling rape “forceable *LOVE*” 

Yes folks, he really is _that_ stupid.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Patriot, I am happily retired...


No snowflake, you are happily retarded. There is a big difference.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> We have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever...


That’s what the *failed* left-wing policy does. Just ask your messiah Barack Obama, who admitted it.




__





						Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%
					

President Obama agrees with recent study that found the economic recovery since the financial crisis has overwhelming favored the richest Americans, with 95% of the income gains from 2009 to 20012 going to the top 1% of the earning population



					money.cnn.com


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The standard law in this case is employment at will.  The State has no authority to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.


And they *don’t*, dummy. You can quit any time you want. They can fire you any time they want. It’s equal. You both have the right to end the employment for any reason.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Why should an employer be "required to hire"? That makes zero sense.
> 
> 
> 
> So does requiring an work ethic in an allegedly at-will employment State.  Right wingers have no sense.
Click to expand...

The government doesn’t “require” that. You’re free to be the lazy, useless bum that you are. Just don’t expect businesses to want your services.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Income from investments and government benefits is not considered earned income.--Investopedia


That’s because it’s not _earned_ income until those investments are sold off (ie liquidated). And guess what happens at that time, stupid? You’re taxed on all of it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The standard law in this case is employment at will.  The State has no authority to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> 
> 
> And they *don’t*, dummy. You can quit any time you want. They can fire you any time they want. It’s equal. You both have the right to end the employment for any reason.
Click to expand...

UC must conform to that same fixed Standard.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Why should an employer be "required to hire"? That makes zero sense.
> 
> 
> 
> So does requiring an work ethic in an allegedly at-will employment State.  Right wingers have no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government doesn’t “require” that. You’re free to be the lazy, useless bum that you are. Just don’t expect businesses to want your services.
Click to expand...

I don't expect business to have to hire in an at-will employment State.  Only right wingers are too lazy to be legal to express laws.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income from investments and government benefits is not considered earned income.--Investopedia
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because it’s not _earned_ income until those investments are sold off (ie liquidated). And guess what happens at that time, stupid? You’re taxed on all of it.
Click to expand...

At capital gains tax rates instead of social gains tax rates?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> UC must conform to that same fixed Standard.


And it is, high school dropout. At least this time you didn't regurgitate "equal protection under the law" though!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC must conform to that same fixed Standard.
> 
> 
> 
> And it is, high school dropout. At least this time you didn't regurgitate "equal protection under the law" though!
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  The fixed Standard is employment at the will of either party.  

_*No State shall *enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or *Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts*, or grant any Title of Nobility._


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I don't expect business to have to hire in an at-will employment State.


You said you did 

You can't remember your position from one post to the next


danielpalos said:


> Only right wingers are too lazy to be legal to express laws.


That's hilarious coming from the people who refuse to uphold the law (including the US Constitution itself). You're not getting paid to quit your job. Sorry. Suck it up.


----------



## Harry Dresden

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect business to have to hire in an at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> You said you did
> 
> You can't remember your position from one post to the next
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only right wingers are too lazy to be legal to express laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's hilarious coming from the people who refuse to uphold the law (including the US Constitution itself). You're not getting paid to quit your job. Sorry. Suck it up.
Click to expand...

danny is something else aint he?...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect business to have to hire in an at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> You said you did
> 
> You can't remember your position from one post to the next
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only right wingers are too lazy to be legal to express laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's hilarious coming from the people who refuse to uphold the law (including the US Constitution itself). You're not getting paid to quit your job. Sorry. Suck it up.
Click to expand...

You don't believe in employment at will only the national socialism of requiring a work ethic? That is not what y'all claim in socialism threads.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what the *failed* left-wing policy does. Just ask your messiah Barack Obama, who admitted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%
> 
> 
> President Obama agrees with recent study that found the economic recovery since the financial crisis has overwhelming favored the richest Americans, with 95% of the income gains from 2009 to 20012 going to the top 1% of the earning population
> 
> 
> 
> money.cnn.com
Click to expand...

Just might have something to do with having Reagan's giveaway to the rich tax rates for 30 years period not to mention the brainwash for 30 years. Make no mistake except for Obamacare and executive orders we have been dominated by the GOP reconciliation law and the GOP filibuster rule... The worst inequality and upward mobility ever anywhere is a crime against regular people and you don't even know about it.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Why should an employer be "required to hire"? That makes zero sense.
> 
> 
> 
> So does requiring an work ethic in an allegedly at-will employment State.  Right wingers have no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government doesn’t “require” that. You’re free to be the lazy, useless bum that you are. Just don’t expect businesses to want your services.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, everyone just became lazy and stupid magically. Has nothing to do with refusing to invest in our people's education and infrastructure etc etc etc period no sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share. Only the brainwash makes this mess possible.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot, I am happily retired a******
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You live off of government while producing absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> and I'm worried about my fellow citizens and my country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With good reason. You’re worried they both won’t be able to support you anymore due to *failed* left-wing policies.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *we have a flat tax system* which is a catastrophe for the country and the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately your low IQ prevents you from understanding what that means. We desperately need a flat-tax system. Unfortunately, we have an ignorant progressive tax system.
> 
> View attachment 419282
Click to expand...

Not enough for the mega rich. And your graphs are incomplete. What taxes are they talking about?


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what the *failed* left-wing policy does. Just ask your messiah Barack Obama, who admitted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%
> 
> 
> President Obama agrees with recent study that found the economic recovery since the financial crisis has overwhelming favored the richest Americans, with 95% of the income gains from 2009 to 20012 going to the top 1% of the earning population
> 
> 
> 
> money.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just might have something to do with having Reagan's giveaway to the rich tax rates
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha!! Barack Obama was talking about just his administration under his policies. You should have read the article before commenting, you dysfunctional brainwashed moron. You continue to lie even when you’ve been exposed.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Has nothing to do with refusing to invest in our people's education...


Why can’t you “invest” in your _own_ education? Too greedy? Too lazy?


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Has nothing to do with refusing to invest in our people's education...


It’s kind of funny listening to you tools wail against the wealthy - and then, in your infinite stupidity, demand that low income people subsidize the wealthy.  

Hey jackass? People who do not attend college (mechanics, plumbers, janitors, etc.) will spend their entire lives paying for the education of doctors and lawyers who make a lot more money than they do. It would be the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy in history.

You are literally so stupid, you advocate for policies which produce the results you claim to be against. You are so...damn...DUMB.








						Hard-Working Plumber Looking Forward To Paying For His Neighbor’s Gender Studies Degree
					

PADUCAH, KY - With Democrats proposing the mass cancellation of student debt, successful Americans around the country are really looking forward to paying taxes to relieve the debt of people who purchased expensive yet useless college degrees. One local plumbing contractor, Sam Caughorn, is...




					babylonbee.com


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot, I am happily retired a******
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You live off of government while producing absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> and I'm worried about my fellow citizens and my country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With good reason. You’re worried they both won’t be able to support you anymore due to *failed* left-wing policies.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *we have a flat tax system* which is a catastrophe for the country and the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately your low IQ prevents you from understanding what that means. We desperately need a flat-tax system. Unfortunately, we have an ignorant progressive tax system.
> 
> View attachment 419282
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough for the mega rich. And your graphs are incomplete. What taxes are they talking about?
Click to expand...

You got owned with facts (as usual). Just take the “L” and slink home with your tail between your legs.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with refusing to invest in our people's education...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you “invest” in your _own_ education? Too greedy? Too lazy?
Click to expand...

Should we ask persons in tent cities?


----------



## Mr Natural

The weather, the beaches, the mountains, the recreational facilities, the entertainment options, the cuisine, the job opportunities.

Who could not be miserable with all that?


----------



## Nostra

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


All of them except New York & New Jersey.  They suck just as much.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with refusing to invest in our people's education...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you “invest” in your _own_ education? Too greedy? Too lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask persons in tent cities?
Click to expand...

Yes. We should. Why can’t they invest in their _own_ education? It’s a simple question and yet none of you can answer it.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> The weather, the beaches, the mountains, the recreational facilities, the entertainment options, the cuisine, the job opportunities.
> 
> Who could not be miserable with all that?


The illegal aliens murdering Kate Steinle. The streets covered in heroin needles and human feces. The homeless people lined up for miles and miles.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> ...the job opportunities.


Bwahahahahaha! People are fleeing in record numbers due to the lack of jobs.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with refusing to invest in our people's education...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you “invest” in your _own_ education? Too greedy? Too lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we ask persons in tent cities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. We should. Why can’t they invest in their _own_ education? It’s a simple question and yet none of you can answer it.
Click to expand...

Do they have a right to work in alleged Right to Work States?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weather, the beaches, the mountains, the recreational facilities, the entertainment options, the cuisine, the job opportunities.
> 
> Who could not be miserable with all that?
> 
> 
> 
> The illegal aliens murdering Kate Steinle. The streets covered in heroin needles and human feces. The homeless people lined up for miles and miles.
Click to expand...

Right wingers have no fine capital solutions.


----------



## Mr Natural

P@triot said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the job opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahaha! People are fleeing in record numbers due to the lack of jobs.
Click to expand...

Stop being stupid for once in your life.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what the *failed* left-wing policy does. Just ask your messiah Barack Obama, who admitted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%
> 
> 
> President Obama agrees with recent study that found the economic recovery since the financial crisis has overwhelming favored the richest Americans, with 95% of the income gains from 2009 to 20012 going to the top 1% of the earning population
> 
> 
> 
> money.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just might have something to do with having Reagan's giveaway to the rich tax rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha!! Barack Obama was talking about just his administration under his policies. You should have read the article before commenting, you dysfunctional brainwashed moron. You continue to lie even when you’ve been exposed.
Click to expand...

We have had GOP giveaway to the rich tax rates for 33 years and your garbage propaganda ditto. The only thing that changed under Obama was that the rich made out like bandits from another corrupt GOP bubble and bust under George w bush. You know nothing but garbage propaganda, brainwashed functional moron.... .


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with refusing to invest in our people's education...
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you “invest” in your _own_ education? Too greedy? Too lazy?
Click to expand...

We have the worst inequality ever anywhere at this point after 30 years of GOP giveaway to the rich and screw job for everyone else dumbass can you see past your own nose? I am retired I am thinking of the good of the nation instead of being a dumbass selfish GOP dupe.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> I am retired I am thinking of the good of the nation instead of being a dumbass selfish GOP dupe.


No you're not. You're greedy, selfish ass is thinking about _your_ social security, and _your_ Medicare, and all of the other fuck'n unconstitutional government controlled bullshit.

If you were actually thinking about the good of the nation, you would demand that government not give you Social Security and Medicare since we're *$23 trillion* in debt.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> We have the worst inequality ever anywhere at this point after 30 years of GOP giveaway to the rich


The GOP hasn't been in control for 30 years, paid Russian troll. I've proven you wrong on this already. Under Trump, the low income has seen their biggest jump ever. And under Obama, Barack himself that 95% of the wealth went to the top 1%. Because that's what failed left-wing policy does.


----------



## P@triot

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the job opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahaha! People are fleeing in record numbers due to the lack of jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being stupid for once in your life.
Click to expand...

You have nothing of value to add because you know you're on the wrong side of the facts. 

Watching you fight so hard to reconcile the facts against the ideology you were duped into believing is _priceless_.


----------



## P@triot

Once again, California runs another massive corporation out of state. And with it, tens of thousands will flee that shit-hole state as well.

Hewlett Packard Enterprises is the Latest Company to Flee California for Texas


----------



## danielpalos

Upgrading HVAC to HEPA standard in public accommodation can still help stimulate the economy.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the worst inequality ever anywhere at this point after 30 years of GOP giveaway to the rich
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP hasn't been in control for 30 years, paid Russian troll. I've proven you wrong on this already. Under Trump, the low income has seen their biggest jump ever. And under Obama, Barack himself that 95% of the wealth went to the top 1%. Because that's what failed left-wing policy does.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate to 50% and had success, but on the way out he cut it to 28% and we have had about that ever since, brainwashed functional moron. Not enough money to invest in America and Americans. Republicans only need 51 votes to cut taxes and services with their scumbag Nixon GOP reconciliation rule. Meanwhile the Democrats need 60 votes for reform and have had that for all together 35 days or so for ObamaCare in the middle of another corrupt GOP economic meltdown.... Like everyone else in the GOP base, you are absolutely clueless.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate to 50% and had success, but on the way out he cut it to 28% and we have had about that ever since


We have literally *never* had a 28% income tax rate (unless you fall in the poverty level). In my entire life, I've never paid less than 32%. _Ever_. You're a paid Russian troll and you're failing at it.


----------



## danielpalos

Tax cut economics is worthless.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Tax cut economics is worthless.


That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.

But I have an entire thread filled with facts and data which proves that once again, you're either completely ignorant of topic, or lying about it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cut economics is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.
> 
> But I have an entire thread filled with facts and data which proves that once again, you're either completely ignorant of topic, or lying about it.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.  You all only have a problem with the general welfare not the general warfare.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.


That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.

Meanwhile, the world laughs at left-wing economics that produced the U.S.S.R. (collapsed), Venezuela (collapsed), Ethiopia (collapsed), etc., while Trump created the greatest economy in history.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cut economics is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.
> 
> But I have an entire thread filled with facts and data which proves that once again, you're either completely ignorant of topic, or lying about it.
Click to expand...

You are the one who is ignorant of republican fails and democrat fixes.


----------



## Dick Foster

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


Well almost any one other state than perhaps New York or Illinois the other two big democommie overrun and run shitholes.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.
> 
> Meanwhile, the world laughs at left-wing economics that produced the U.S.S.R. (collapsed), Venezuela (collapsed), Ethiopia (collapsed), etc., while Trump created the greatest economy in history.
Click to expand...

Your right wing warfare-State is the socialism you are defending.  We have a welfare clause not a warfare clause.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> You are the one who is ignorant of republican fails and democrat fixes.


There are no Dumbocrat “fixes”. Which is why you *can’t* list any. *President Trump* and the Republicans just delivered unprecedented economic prosperity.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Your right wing warfare-State is the socialism you are defending.  We have a welfare clause not a warfare clause.


Yawn. Another ignorant comment you repeat a hundred times per day on USMB. Here’s the thing snowflake - there wasn’t a single war under *President Trump*. Not one. And in fact, he brokered four historic *peace* agreements:

Israel - United Arab Emirates peace agreement
Israel - Bahrain peace agreement
Israel - Sudan peace agreement
Serbia - Kosovo economic normalization
Now, let’s look at the biggest wars in US history:

World War I occurred under Dumbocrat Woodrow Wilson
World War II occurred under Dumbocrat FDR
Korean War occurred under Dumbocrat Harry Truman
Vietnam occurred under Dumbocrat Lyndon Johnson
You’re trolling on USMB has grown stale and old. You just copy the same nonsense (that even you don’t believe) over and over. Find a new hobby, clown.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right wing warfare-State is the socialism you are defending.  We have a welfare clause not a warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn. Another ignorant comment you repeat a hundred times per day on USMB. Here’s the thing snowflake - there wasn’t a single war under *President Trump*. Not one. And in fact, he brokered four historic *peace* agreements:
> 
> Israel - United Arab Emirates peace agreement
> Israel - Bahrain peace agreement
> Israel - Sudan peace agreement
> Serbia - Kosovo economic normalization
> Now, let’s look at the biggest wars in US history:
> 
> World War I occurred under Dumbocrat Woodrow Wilson
> World War II occurred under Dumbocrat FDR
> Korean War occurred under Dumbocrat Harry Truman
> Vietnam occurred under Dumbocrat Lyndon Johnson
> You’re trolling on USMB has grown stale and old. You just copy the same nonsense (that even you don’t believe) over and over. Find a new hobby, clown.
Click to expand...

Abolish our fake news and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.
> 
> Meanwhile, the world laughs at left-wing economics that produced the U.S.S.R. (collapsed), Venezuela (collapsed), Ethiopia (collapsed), etc., while Trump created the greatest economy in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your right wing warfare-State is the socialism you are defending.  We have a welfare clause not a warfare clause.
Click to expand...

The welfare clause isn't about handing out money to deadbeats, Moron.

And is clearly says "promote", not "provide".


----------



## hadit

Mr Clean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
Click to expand...

Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.


----------



## hadit

bodecea said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> More California Envy.
> 
> What is the crime level for other STDs?   Felony or Misdemeanor?
Click to expand...

Which other STDs are as deadly and difficult to treat successfully?


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.
> 
> Meanwhile, the world laughs at left-wing economics that produced the U.S.S.R. (collapsed), Venezuela (collapsed), Ethiopia (collapsed), etc., while Trump created the greatest economy in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your right wing warfare-State is the socialism you are defending.  We have a welfare clause not a warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The welfare clause isn't about handing out money to deadbeats, Moron.
> 
> And is clearly says "promote", not "provide".
Click to expand...

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics or the law.  Both, promote and provide are expressly used regarding the general welfare but not the common defense.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
Click to expand...

Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
Click to expand...


Yep, they're restructuring OUT of California.


----------



## TheGreatSatan

I like watching all the Democrats in California complaining about losing their business and livelihood.  They voted for the reset and now they are getting it.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they're restructuring OUT of California.
Click to expand...

They are welcome to vote blue in those red States.


----------



## danielpalos

TheGreatSatan said:


> I like watching all the Democrats in California complaining about losing their business and livelihood.  They voted for the reset and now they are getting it.


We should be optimizing Government as well.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
Click to expand...

It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they're restructuring OUT of California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are welcome to vote blue in those red States.
Click to expand...


Sure, that's possible.  Only problem is various elections are held every 2 and 4 years.  State dependency on taxes is DAILY.  HP moving out of California means $29 BILLION and 2200 employees won't be subjected to California taxes.  Let them tread water for a couple years.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
Click to expand...

Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.
Click to expand...

It's still leaving CA for lower tax, lower regulation places. Thanks for acknowledging the truth.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's still leaving CA for lower tax, lower regulation places. Thanks for acknowledging the truth.
Click to expand...

I try to find solutions for the truth.

What is your opinion of the public sector being responsible for the physical layer of infrastructure?  Something even more comprehensive than our interstate freeway system.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what all welfare queens scream out of fear that their government gravy-train will dry up.
> 
> Meanwhile, the world laughs at left-wing economics that produced the U.S.S.R. (collapsed), Venezuela (collapsed), Ethiopia (collapsed), etc., while Trump created the greatest economy in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your right wing warfare-State is the socialism you are defending.  We have a welfare clause not a warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The welfare clause isn't about handing out money to deadbeats, Moron.
> 
> And is clearly says "promote", not "provide".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics or the law.  Both, promote and provide are expressly used regarding the general welfare but not the common defense.
Click to expand...

The Founders say you are full of shit...............


From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people.  Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”









James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill.  Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government.  During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution.  Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design.  In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States.  There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power.  And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute”  into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's still leaving CA for lower tax, lower regulation places. Thanks for acknowledging the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I try to find solutions for the truth.
> 
> What is your opinion of the public sector being responsible for the physical layer of infrastructure?  Something even more comprehensive than our interstate freeway system.
Click to expand...

Anything interstate is the purview of the federal government. Thus, the freeway system. Something entirely within a state should be that state's responsibility, and it's not automatically a better solution to have the government do it.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”


A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
Click to expand...

Completely opposite of what the Founders said.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's still leaving CA for lower tax, lower regulation places. Thanks for acknowledging the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I try to find solutions for the truth.
> 
> What is your opinion of the public sector being responsible for the physical layer of infrastructure?  Something even more comprehensive than our interstate freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything interstate is the purview of the federal government. Thus, the freeway system. Something entirely within a state should be that state's responsibility, and it's not automatically a better solution to have the government do it.
Click to expand...

In some cases it must.   The job of the public sector is to ensure Government functions. 

Energy infrastructure could be analogous to freeway infrastructure to ensure better distribution.  Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
Click to expand...

The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
Click to expand...

Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is express not implied.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
Click to expand...

Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?  

Watch this..................


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's still leaving CA for lower tax, lower regulation places. Thanks for acknowledging the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I try to find solutions for the truth.
> 
> What is your opinion of the public sector being responsible for the physical layer of infrastructure?  Something even more comprehensive than our interstate freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything interstate is the purview of the federal government. Thus, the freeway system. Something entirely within a state should be that state's responsibility, and it's not automatically a better solution to have the government do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some cases it must.   The job of the public sector is to ensure Government functions.
> 
> Energy infrastructure could be analogous to freeway infrastructure to ensure better distribution.  Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.
Click to expand...

Government is very good at ensuring equality of misery for all. It is wise, therefore, to give it as little responsibility as possible.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
Click to expand...

Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's still leaving CA for lower tax, lower regulation places. Thanks for acknowledging the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I try to find solutions for the truth.
> 
> What is your opinion of the public sector being responsible for the physical layer of infrastructure?  Something even more comprehensive than our interstate freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything interstate is the purview of the federal government. Thus, the freeway system. Something entirely within a state should be that state's responsibility, and it's not automatically a better solution to have the government do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some cases it must.   The job of the public sector is to ensure Government functions.
> 
> Energy infrastructure could be analogous to freeway infrastructure to ensure better distribution.  Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is very good at ensuring equality of misery for all. It is wise, therefore, to give it as little responsibility as possible.
Click to expand...

right wing platitudes?  You need fine capital solutions not merely, doth protest too much.


----------



## Papageorgio

Giving knowingly giving someone AIDs in California but giving then Covid is bad. California has flipped out.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
Click to expand...

I told everyone to watch..........

You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
Click to expand...

Still dodging.

I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "pitiful 936 sq ft home" costs a staggering $459,000 because people actually want to live there!
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about economics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which direction is the trend going? IOW, is wealth flowing into or out of the state? Are businesses moving in or out? Those are the questions to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business needs to restructure due to the pandemic anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been going on for much longer than the pandemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of it has even been going to Mexico not just Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's still leaving CA for lower tax, lower regulation places. Thanks for acknowledging the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I try to find solutions for the truth.
> 
> What is your opinion of the public sector being responsible for the physical layer of infrastructure?  Something even more comprehensive than our interstate freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything interstate is the purview of the federal government. Thus, the freeway system. Something entirely within a state should be that state's responsibility, and it's not automatically a better solution to have the government do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some cases it must.   The job of the public sector is to ensure Government functions.
> 
> Energy infrastructure could be analogous to freeway infrastructure to ensure better distribution.  Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is very good at ensuring equality of misery for all. It is wise, therefore, to give it as little responsibility as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing platitudes?  You need fine capital solutions not merely, doth protest too much.
Click to expand...

What you said is totally meaningless.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
Click to expand...

You mean like owning a weapon.


----------



## P@triot

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right wing warfare-State is the socialism you are defending.  We have a welfare clause not a warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The welfare clause isn't about handing out money to deadbeats, Moron.
> 
> And is clearly says "promote", not "provide".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've pointed that out to him many times. He's a troll through. He's not interested in facts.

Also, it *isn't* a power anyway. The US Constitution is filled with items that have nothing to do with powers. Promote the general welfare is *not* a power. It outlines the federal government's guideline within each of the 18 enumerated powers.


----------



## P@triot

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> right wing platitudes?  You need fine capital solutions not merely, doth protest too much.
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is totally meaningless.
Click to expand...

He does that a lot! He hopes to convince everyone to embrace socialism by sounding "smart" but because he doesn't know the words he attempts to string together, he comes across sounding _really_ stupid.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Abolish our fake news...


Snowflake, we're _trying_, but you're dumb ass just keeps showing up to troll with propaganda.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics or the law.


Then why do "right-wingers" keep kicking your ass in _every_ election? 

You're the joke of the board. Just find a new hobby, clown. Trolling is not a hobby. Find something constructive to do with your time.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We should be optimizing Government as well.


We did...but voting Dumbocrats out.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Some of it has even been *going to Mexico* not just Texas.


And _still_ you haven't figured out that left-wing policy ends in catastrophic failure. It's so fucking bad, it can't even compete with *Mexico*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What is your opinion of the public sector being responsible for the *physical layer of infrastructure*?


As opposed to _what_, dill-hole, the *virtual* layer of infrastructure?!? For fucks sake, will you please stop using words that you don't know? Stop trying to SOUND smart.

Infrastructure _is_ physical. By it's very nature, you dumb ass. And there aren't "layers". There is just infrastructure.


----------



## P@triot

Nostra said:


> The Founders say you are full of shit...............


Yup. Posted that a thousand times all over USMB. The Federalist Papers explain the entire intent by the founders. But Daniel isn't here to learn or debate. He's here to _troll_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.



The clause is *not* a power
The clause stipulates the what their responsibility is _within_ each of the 18 enumerated powers. Again, it is not a power itself.
Now go away, troll. The adults are trying to discuss.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.


Right. It doesn't mean handouts for Daniel. Hit the road, clown.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our Constitution is express not implied.


Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.

Move along now, troll.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?


So I have the constitutional "*individual* *liberty*" to blow your fuck'n head off with a shotgun? Yes or No, snowflake?

Watch this one, Nostra!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.


He didn't claim _anything_. You did. He merely asked. You defeated your own argument, and he hung you with it.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging.
> 
> I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

I accept your admission that our welfare clause cannot do what you claim, if payments can't be provided to individuals for the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
Click to expand...

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The clause is *not* a power
> The clause stipulates the what their responsibility is _within_ each of the 18 enumerated powers. Again, it is not a power itself.
> Now go away, troll. The adults are trying to discuss.
Click to expand...

Right wingers only have right wing fantasy not any true understanding.  These are the general powers delegated to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; 

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It doesn't mean handouts for Daniel. Hit the road, clown.
Click to expand...

You are confused.  It is about general operation of the laws to solve for an exigency.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
Click to expand...

The general welfare covers any given contingency.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
Click to expand...

*Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.*

You are clearly clueless.  


  The *United States Bill of Rights* comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution* specific guarantees of personal freedoms *


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.


----------



## Nostra

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
Click to expand...

That moron doesn't understand a word of the Constitution.  It specifically lays out the very few powers the Fed govt has.  That's it.  The Feds have no power that isn't specifically listed in the Constitution.  All other powers reside with the people and the states.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging.
> 
> I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your admission that our welfare clause cannot do what you claim, if payments can't be provided to individuals for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

What did I claim about the welfare clause?  Be specific and quote my post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.*
> 
> You are clearly clueless.
> 
> 
> The *United States Bill of Rights* comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution* specific guarantees of personal freedoms *
Click to expand...

You are even more clueless.   You can't ignore the first clause of our Second Amendment.  There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging.
> 
> I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your admission that our welfare clause cannot do what you claim, if payments can't be provided to individuals for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I claim about the welfare clause?  Be specific and quote my post.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is general and must cover abortions.  We have a First Amendment regarding morals.  And, ethically, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Right wingers also allege to have a problem with prevention.


----------



## MeBelle

I thought this thread was about California????


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
Click to expand...

Once again I refer you to the folks who wrote it...............they claim you are an idiot.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
Click to expand...

Once again I will use YOUR words against you..............show me where the word "abortion" is "expressed" in the Constitution.

Once again you will dodge with some claptrap your lefty Gov 101 Prof spewed last week.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I refer you to the folks who wrote it...............they claim you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

Words have meaning.  Only the right wing appeals to ignorance (of the words that comprise) the law.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging.
> 
> I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your admission that our welfare clause cannot do what you claim, if payments can't be provided to individuals for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I claim about the welfare clause?  Be specific and quote my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover abortions.  We have a First Amendment regarding morals.  And, ethically, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Right wingers also allege to have a problem with prevention.
Click to expand...

Show me where 'morals' are 'expressed' in the First Amendment.

*First Amendment*
First Amendment Annotated
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I will use YOUR words against you..............show me where the word "abortion" is "expressed" in the Constitution.
> 
> Once again you will dodge with some claptrap your lefty Gov 101 Prof spewed last week.
Click to expand...

It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency, just not in the socialist manner on a national basis you would prefer.   Free market economics or right wingers are just plain liars!


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging.
> 
> I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your admission that our welfare clause cannot do what you claim, if payments can't be provided to individuals for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I claim about the welfare clause?  Be specific and quote my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover abortions.  We have a First Amendment regarding morals.  And, ethically, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Right wingers also allege to have a problem with prevention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where 'morals' are 'expressed' in the First Amendment.
> 
> *First Amendment*
> First Amendment Annotated
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding Constitutional law.  Religion is about morals not necessarily ethics.  We should be using ethics.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I will use YOUR words against you..............show me where the word "abortion" is "expressed" in the Constitution.
> 
> Once again you will dodge with some claptrap your lefty Gov 101 Prof spewed last week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency, just not in the socialist manner on a national basis you would prefer.   Free market economics or right wingers are just plain liars!
Click to expand...

It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency,

Wrong.  The Founders put specific powers into the Constitution for the Fed Govt.  Show me where they said it "expressly" covers "any contingency".


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging.
> 
> I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your admission that our welfare clause cannot do what you claim, if payments can't be provided to individuals for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I claim about the welfare clause?  Be specific and quote my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover abortions.  We have a First Amendment regarding morals.  And, ethically, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Right wingers also allege to have a problem with prevention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where 'morals' are 'expressed' in the First Amendment.
> 
> *First Amendment*
> First Amendment Annotated
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding Constitutional law.  Religion is about morals not necessarily ethics.  We should be using ethics.
Click to expand...

I accept you concession "morals" is not found in the First Amendment.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
Click to expand...

The Founders say you are full of shit...............


From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”









James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I will use YOUR words against you..............show me where the word "abortion" is "expressed" in the Constitution.
> 
> Once again you will dodge with some claptrap your lefty Gov 101 Prof spewed last week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency, just not in the socialist manner on a national basis you would prefer.   Free market economics or right wingers are just plain liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency,
> 
> Wrong.  The Founders put specific powers into the Constitution for the Fed Govt.  Show me where they said it "expressly" covers "any contingency".
Click to expand...

General means general not common or limited.  Our defense clause is common not general.  See how simple it is.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told everyone to watch..........
> 
> You dodged.  Can't show us where "abortion" is expressed in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't show where Government has the social Power to do what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging.
> 
> I accept your admission abortion is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your admission that our welfare clause cannot do what you claim, if payments can't be provided to individuals for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I claim about the welfare clause?  Be specific and quote my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover abortions.  We have a First Amendment regarding morals.  And, ethically, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Right wingers also allege to have a problem with prevention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where 'morals' are 'expressed' in the First Amendment.
> 
> *First Amendment*
> First Amendment Annotated
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding Constitutional law.  Religion is about morals not necessarily ethics.  We should be using ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept you concession "morals" is not found in the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Only if you concede right wingers are not about the morals of Religion.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> The Founders say you are full of shit...............


lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
Click to expand...

We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
Click to expand...

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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. 

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I will use YOUR words against you..............show me where the word "abortion" is "expressed" in the Constitution.
> 
> Once again you will dodge with some claptrap your lefty Gov 101 Prof spewed last week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency, just not in the socialist manner on a national basis you would prefer.   Free market economics or right wingers are just plain liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency,
> 
> Wrong.  The Founders put specific powers into the Constitution for the Fed Govt.  Show me where they said it "expressly" covers "any contingency".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General means general not common or limited.  Our defense clause is common not general.  See how simple it is.
Click to expand...



I see what a Simpleton you are.


The Founders say you are full of shit...............


From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”










James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.
Click to expand...

All they did was ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means.  The States merely need a good case to move forward so that the SC has to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
Click to expand...

No, the Founders say it right here:



From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”










James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I will use YOUR words against you..............show me where the word "abortion" is "expressed" in the Constitution.
> 
> Once again you will dodge with some claptrap your lefty Gov 101 Prof spewed last week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency, just not in the socialist manner on a national basis you would prefer.   Free market economics or right wingers are just plain liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency,
> 
> Wrong.  The Founders put specific powers into the Constitution for the Fed Govt.  Show me where they said it "expressly" covers "any contingency".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General means general not common or limited.  Our defense clause is common not general.  See how simple it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see what a Simpleton you are.
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
Click to expand...

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance of express law and you confided in the sincerity of Madison instead of the words actually used in our Constitution. 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
Click to expand...

You simply don't understand what he meant.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
Click to expand...

Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means.  The States merely need a good case to move forward so that the SC has to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.
Click to expand...

IOW, they're wrong because you disagree with their ruling.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the Founders.  Go back and read my post quoting them as many times as it takes to sink into that mushy skull of your, Puddinhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I will use YOUR words against you..............show me where the word "abortion" is "expressed" in the Constitution.
> 
> Once again you will dodge with some claptrap your lefty Gov 101 Prof spewed last week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency, just not in the socialist manner on a national basis you would prefer.   Free market economics or right wingers are just plain liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a General clause and must cover any given contingency,
> 
> Wrong.  The Founders put specific powers into the Constitution for the Fed Govt.  Show me where they said it "expressly" covers "any contingency".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General means general not common or limited.  Our defense clause is common not general.  See how simple it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see what a Simpleton you are.
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance of express law and you confided in the sincerity of Madison instead of the words actually used in our Constitution.
> 
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
Click to expand...



So you claim what the people who wrote the Constitution say about what they wrote is "ignorance" of said Constitution.

You really are a troll.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
Click to expand...

What then did he mean when he said this?

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* 

Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.


----------



## Nostra

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
Click to expand...

Madison doesn't know as much about the Constitution as ol Daniel here.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
Click to expand...

Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?


----------



## hadit

Nostra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison doesn't know as much about the Constitution as ol Daniel here.
Click to expand...

That's because Daniel has the power to randomly assign meanings to words that no one else agrees with.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means.  The States merely need a good case to move forward so that the SC has to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, they're wrong because you disagree with their ruling.
Click to expand...

Not at all.  I have no problem asking the supreme Court why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means in DC v Heller, should I have standing.  Our Tenth Amendment applies and States may feel free to challenge any Thing repugnant to State sovereignty and States' rights.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?
Click to expand...

Would you tell us what Madison meant if he didn't mean the words he wrote?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
Click to expand...

Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?
Click to expand...


The fact you are too stupid to make a point on your own, and have to steal words from others, is relevant.

You are a troll and a plagiarist.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you tell us what Madison meant if he didn't mean the words he wrote?
Click to expand...

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean what you interpret it to mean, as the Founders clearly point out.

They wrote the document, you are a single digit IQ troll.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact you are too stupid to make a point on your own, and have to steal words from others, is relevant.
> 
> You are a troll and a plagiarist.
Click to expand...

You are merely ignorant.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't mean what you interpret it to mean, as the Founders clearly point out.
> 
> They wrote the document, you are a single digit IQ troll.
Click to expand...

lol.  It is a general power to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general warfare.   Only right wingers, never get it.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez the clown who has to steal words from others because he is to stupid to form an original thought.
> 
> The fact you are too stupid to make a point on your own, and have to steal words from others, is relevant.
> 
> You are a troll and a plagiarist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely ignorant.
Click to expand...


Sez the clown who is so stupid he has to steal the words of others because he can't form a coherent thought on his own.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The general welfare covers any given contingency.


Any contingency *within* their 18 enumerated powers, clown. The “general welfare” clause is not a power itself. If it were, it would make the US Constitution null & void as it would create a government with unlimited power.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States *not Individual Liberty*.


Then why does it say, “the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? 

Also, why do I own a stockpile of firearms when I have never been a part of a militia? Oops. You lose (as _always_).


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez the clown who has to steal words from others because he is to stupid to form an original thought.
> 
> The fact you are too stupid to make a point on your own, and have to steal words from others, is relevant.
> 
> You are a troll and a plagiarist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sez the clown who is so stupid he has to steal the words of others because he can't form a coherent thought on his own.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who only has fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem) instead of any valid argument for rebuttal.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means.  The States merely need a good case to move forward so that the SC has to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, they're wrong because you disagree with their ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  I have no problem asking the supreme Court why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means in DC v Heller, should I have standing.  Our Tenth Amendment applies and States may feel free to challenge any Thing repugnant to State sovereignty and States' rights.
Click to expand...

Do you have standing to challenge a SC ruling? Not on your own, you don't. You have to first challenge a specific law in state court, lose, appeal it multiple times through the appellate courts, then finally get to the SC. Then, only if they decide your case actually has merit, which they likely wouldn't, would you have standing to challenge their ruling and insist that your understanding of the Constitution is greater than theirs.

Here's a hint. The SC rarely overturns itself, especially at the special pleading of someone whose greatest understanding of the Constitution comes from reading some chapter titles in a book.

So you champion state's rights when it comes to restricting the 2nd Amendment, but want the federal government to overrule when it comes to setting their MW. Why are you inconsistent?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> 
> 
> Any contingency *within* their 18 enumerated powers, clown. The “general welfare” clause is not a power itself. If it were, it would make the US Constitution null & void as it would create a government with unlimited power.
Click to expand...


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Our Constitution has always been object oriented with a few examples of particulars.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> These are the general powers delegated to Congress:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, *to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Since your IQ is so low, I actually cannot determine if it’s just a matter of you being so stupid, or if you’re trolling again.

As you can see, the power is to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excise”. That’s the power. The _reason_ they were granted that power is to “pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare”.

I know “to” is a really hard word for someone like you. Maybe ask a trusted adult to help explain it to you?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States *not Individual Liberty*.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does it say, “the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?
> 
> Also, why do I own a stockpile of firearms when I have never been a part of a militia? Oops. You lose (as _always_).
Click to expand...

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means.  The States merely need a good case to move forward so that the SC has to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, they're wrong because you disagree with their ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  I have no problem asking the supreme Court why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means in DC v Heller, should I have standing.  Our Tenth Amendment applies and States may feel free to challenge any Thing repugnant to State sovereignty and States' rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have standing to challenge a SC ruling? Not on your own, you don't. You have to first challenge a specific law in state court, lose, appeal it multiple times through the appellate courts, then finally get to the SC. Then, only if they decide your case actually has merit, which they likely wouldn't, would you have standing to challenge their ruling and insist that your understanding of the Constitution is greater than theirs.
> 
> Here's a hint. The SC rarely overturns itself, especially at the special pleading of someone whose greatest understanding of the Constitution comes from reading some chapter titles in a book.
> 
> So you champion state's rights when it comes to restricting the 2nd Amendment, but want the federal government to overrule when it comes to setting their MW. Why are you inconsistent?
Click to expand...

Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It doesn't mean handouts for Daniel. Hit the road, clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.  It is about general operation of the laws to solve for an exigency.
Click to expand...

You are low IQ, greedy, and lazy. It’s about their latitude within their 18 enumerated powers only. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison have already clarified this. They trump you, son.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> to “pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare”.


It says the general welfare not the general badfare nor the common offense.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare means a proactive approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It doesn't mean handouts for Daniel. Hit the road, clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.  It is about general operation of the laws to solve for an exigency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are low IQ, greedy, and lazy. It’s about their latitude within their 18 enumerated powers only. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison have already clarified this. They trump you, son.
Click to expand...

General operation of the laws promotes and provides for the general welfare.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our Constitution has always been *object oriented* with a few examples of particulars.


The US Constitution relates to programming language? Really? That’s pretty remarkable considering we didn’t even have electricity in 1791, much less computers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> to “pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare”.
> 
> 
> 
> It says the general welfare not the general badfare nor the common offense.
Click to expand...

Yep...”general welfare” of that particular power. Thanks for playing, troll!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.


It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens 

But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> to “pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare”.
> 
> 
> 
> It says the general welfare not the general badfare nor the common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep...”general welfare” of that particular power. Thanks for playing, troll!
Click to expand...

What would be excluded from the general welfare, but the general badfare?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
Click to expand...

Collective and plural because it is about the security of a free State not individual rights.


----------



## Nostra

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
Click to expand...

He is a troll.

And a dumb one at that.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a troll.
> 
> And a dumb one at that.
Click to expand...

You have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken seriously.  In right wing fantasy, you are Always Right simply because you are on the right wing.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> to “pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare”.
> 
> 
> 
> It says the general welfare not the general badfare nor the common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep...”general welfare” of that particular power. Thanks for playing, troll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would be excluded from the general welfare, but the general badfare?
Click to expand...

I googled "badfare legal definition".

Zippo.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a troll.
> 
> And a dumb one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken seriously.  In right wing fantasy, you are Always Right simply because you are on the right wing.
Click to expand...

In this case I am right because the Founders agree with me, and say you are full of shit.

Sux to be you, Troll.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collective and plural because it is about the security of a free State not individual rights.
Click to expand...

Weird how the Founders put "individual rights" numerous times in the Constitution, huh?

But tell us again how they didn't mean "individual rights", Troll.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> to “pay the debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare”.
> 
> 
> 
> It says the general welfare not the general badfare nor the common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep...”general welfare” of that particular power. Thanks for playing, troll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would be excluded from the general welfare, but the general badfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I googled "badfare legal definition".
> 
> Zippo.
Click to expand...










						Welfare
					

Definition of Welfare in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary




					legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
				



.

_Government benefits distributed to impoverished persons to enable them to maintain a minimum standard of well-being._

Payments to Individuals is not the same as any form of alleged warfare against abstractions such as crime, drugs, and terror. 

One promotes the general welfare the other promotes the general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a troll.
> 
> And a dumb one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken seriously.  In right wing fantasy, you are Always Right simply because you are on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case I am right because the Founders agree with me, and say you are full of shit.
> 
> Sux to be you, Troll.
Click to expand...

In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collective and plural because it is about the security of a free State not individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weird how the Founders put "individual rights" numerous times in the Constitution, huh?
> 
> But tell us again how they didn't mean "individual rights", Troll.
Click to expand...

the words are clear and each amendment is different and must be read as expressed.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a troll.
> 
> And a dumb one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken seriously.  In right wing fantasy, you are Always Right simply because you are on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case I am right because the Founders agree with me, and say you are full of shit.
> 
> Sux to be you, Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right.
Click to expand...

Nope.  In reality.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a troll.
> 
> And a dumb one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken seriously.  In right wing fantasy, you are Always Right simply because you are on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case I am right because the Founders agree with me, and say you are full of shit.
> 
> Sux to be you, Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  In reality.
Click to expand...

lol.  You need valid arguments or just be, full of fallacy.  Even promiscuous women can be less full of fallacy than You.


----------



## MeBelle

dammit!



*Stay on topic  (California)*


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

All these insane sectional polemics, insulting people living in different states, is destructive and self-defeating, and ultimately serves the ruling crony capitalist elites in society. The fact is that despite our federal system supposedly giving states a shared degree of sovereignty, it is only the Federal Government and its institutions that issues fiat money and fiat credit.

The states in this downturn, even those most productive in the past, have no ability to “monetarize debt.” They will go bankrupt without Federal assistance. Poorer workers displaced or temporarily unemployed by the pandemic recession also need cash assistance to survive. Without relief, these two developments will cause a greater collapse in demand and services that may lead to a real depression, and certainly will cause a further expansion of the nation’s already growing “underclass.”


----------



## danielpalos

The point is, California should have no misery by promoting the general welfare.


----------



## P@triot

Nostra said:


> That moron doesn't understand a word of the Constitution.


But all of us here on USMB have explained it to him for years. He knows (now). But he’s greedy and lazy, so he desperately wants to make a case that government is required to provide him with food, healthcare, housing, etc.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural not singular or Individual.  It is about the security of our free States and the end justifying the means.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s “plural” because it covers all citizens
> 
> But as with all rights, it is an individual right. Which is why I own man guns and have friends who even own fully automatic firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a troll.
> 
> And a dumb one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken seriously.  In right wing fantasy, you are Always Right simply because you are on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case I am right because the Founders agree with me, and say you are full of shit.
> 
> Sux to be you, Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  In reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You need valid arguments or just be, full of fallacy.  Even promiscuous women can be less full of fallacy than You.
Click to expand...

I brought the arguments of the men who wrote the Constitution.

I'll take their expertise on the subject over a single digit IQ innerweb troll any day.

Dismissed.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> The point is, California should have no misery by promoting the general welfare.


KKKalifonia has tried your Libtard Utopia............and it is a shithole.


----------



## P@triot

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> The states in this downturn, even those most productive in the past, have no ability to “monetarize debt.” *They will go bankrupt without Federal assistance*.


And? So? If they didn’t handle their responsibilities properly, they _should_ go bankrupt. Maybe then their ignorant citizens will stop voting for the *failed* left-wing ideology.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The point is, California *should* have no misery by promoting the general welfare.


The actual point is, they *do*. Because reality doesn’t bend to your fucked up theories.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> General means general not common or limited.  Our defense clause is common not general.  See how simple it is.


So simple that it has you low IQ mouth-breathers confused as hell


----------



## danielpalos

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> All these insane sectional polemics, insulting people living in different states, is destructive and self-defeating, and ultimately serves the ruling crony capitalist elites in society. The fact is that despite our federal system supposedly giving states a shared degree of sovereignty, it is only the Federal Government and its institutions that issues fiat money and fiat credit.
> 
> The states in this downturn, even those most productive in the past, have no ability to “monetarize debt.” They will go bankrupt without Federal assistance. Poorer workers displaced or temporarily unemployed by the pandemic recession also need cash assistance to survive. Without relief, these two developments will cause a greater collapse in demand and services that may lead to a real depression, and certainly will cause a further expansion of the nation’s already growing “underclass.”


In my opinion, States cannot go bankrupt and must be bailed out by the general Government.  A central bank is federal doctrine. 

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding Constitutional law.


Nobody takes left-wingers seriously on constitutional law, economics, morals, ethics, business, law, politics, science, or personal hygiene. The entire world laughs at you people.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> In my opinion, States cannot go bankrupt and must be bailed out by the general Government.


Thank goodness nobody gives a shit about your uninformed, uneducated _opinion_


----------



## danielpalos

lol.  Y'all need valid arguments or all you have is gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> In my opinion, States cannot go bankrupt and must be bailed out by the general Government.


You know who says that? The kind of people who support the *failed* left-wing ideology. People who see their beloved California and Illinois on the verge of bankruptcy after implementing the policies they were duped into believing. The policies that actually did bankrupt Detroit.


----------



## Nostra

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding Constitutional law.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes left-wingers seriously on constitutional law, economics, morals, ethics, business, law, politics, science, or personal hygiene. The entire world laughs at you people.
Click to expand...

Coulda stopped after the first 5 words.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> lol.  Y'all need valid arguments or all you have is gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.


....and the people who wrote the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, States cannot go bankrupt and must be bailed out by the general Government.
> 
> 
> 
> You know who says that? The kind of people who support the *failed* left-wing ideology. People who see their beloved California and Illinois on the verge of bankruptcy after implementing the policies they were duped into believing. The policies that actually did bankrupt Detroit.
Click to expand...

You need valid arguments.  Right wingers have fine capital solutions and merely, doth protest too much.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> lol.  Y'all need valid arguments or all you have is gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.


There is an old saying, dumb Daniel: “if _everybody_ in the room is an asshole, it’s probably you”.

There is a reason we’re all laughing at you.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Y'all need valid arguments or all you have is gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.
> 
> 
> 
> ....and the people who wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You have no understanding of the terms.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Y'all need valid arguments or all you have is gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.
> 
> 
> 
> There is an old saying, dumb Daniel: “if _everybody_ in the room is an asshole, it’s probably you”.
> 
> There is a reason we’re all laughing at you.
Click to expand...

Practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy have no valid argument and just like to, be themselves.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, States cannot go bankrupt and must be bailed out by the general Government.
> 
> 
> 
> You know who says that? The kind of people who support the *failed* left-wing ideology. People who see their beloved California and Illinois on the verge of bankruptcy after implementing the policies they were duped into believing. The policies that actually did bankrupt Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need valid arguments.  Right wingers have fine capital solutions and merely, doth protest too much.
Click to expand...

I just gave you a “valid” argument: California and Illinois. You’re projecting as you’ve yet to provide a valid argument. You just string together words that don’t even fit in hopes of sounding “smart”. It’s not working.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Y'all need valid arguments or all you have is gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.
> 
> 
> 
> ....and the people who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no understanding of the terms.
Click to expand...

My link to the writing of the Founders clearly explains the terms.  You are just too stupid to comprehend them, Troll.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy have no valid argument and just like to, be themselves.


Practitioners of the abomination of projecting, dost hath no validuous case, but dost hath thou need to precipitate a perpetuous projection of intellectualism out of thou inferiority complex.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, States cannot go bankrupt and must be bailed out by the general Government.
> 
> 
> 
> You know who says that? The kind of people who support the *failed* left-wing ideology. People who see their beloved California and Illinois on the verge of bankruptcy after implementing the policies they were duped into believing. The policies that actually did bankrupt Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need valid arguments.  Right wingers have fine capital solutions and merely, doth protest too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just gave you a “valid” argument: California and Illinois. You’re projecting as you’ve yet to provide a valid argument. You just string together words that don’t even fit in hopes of sounding “smart”. It’s not working.
Click to expand...

You are begging the question regarding left wing ideology.  It hasn't failed just because you claim it has.  I could easily proclaim right wingers alleged subscription to capitalism failed in 1929.  Socialism has been bailing us out ever since.


----------



## P@triot

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no understanding of the terms.
> 
> 
> 
> My link to the writing of the Founders clearly explains the terms.  You are just too stupid to comprehend them, Troll.
Click to expand...

Like I said, he knows. He does. It’s been explained to him for years here on USMB. Even dumbed down to his level for him. But he’s greedy and lazy. He thinks government should be able to take from you and give to him so he doesn’t have to support himself.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Y'all need valid arguments or all you have is gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.
> 
> 
> 
> ....and the people who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no understanding of the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My link to the writing of the Founders clearly explains the terms.  You are just too stupid to comprehend them, Troll.
Click to expand...

You simply don't understand the concepts.  It is about the general power to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general badfare.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and it "expressly" restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Food *isn't* one of them. Housing *isn't* one of them. Healthcare *isn't* one of them.
> 
> Move along now, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare covers any given contingency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you stealing the words of Madison and claiming them as your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you understand the words posted and are only quibbling about something that is irrelevant to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you tell us what Madison meant if he didn't mean the words he wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You are begging the question regarding left wing ideology.  It hasn't failed just because you claim it has.


If it didn’t fail, why are you and Nancy Pelosi desperately begging for the federal government to bailout California & Illinois? And why did Detroit actually file bankruptcy after 69 years of total Dumbocrat control (city council and Mayor)?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

The general welfare is expressed.  There is no general power to promote or provide for the general badfare.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely opposite of what the Founders said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flowery words that mean nothing.  Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said.  That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.  Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?
> 
> Watch this..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like owning a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means.  The States merely need a good case to move forward so that the SC has to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, they're wrong because you disagree with their ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  I have no problem asking the supreme Court why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means in DC v Heller, should I have standing.  Our Tenth Amendment applies and States may feel free to challenge any Thing repugnant to State sovereignty and States' rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have standing to challenge a SC ruling? Not on your own, you don't. You have to first challenge a specific law in state court, lose, appeal it multiple times through the appellate courts, then finally get to the SC. Then, only if they decide your case actually has merit, which they likely wouldn't, would you have standing to challenge their ruling and insist that your understanding of the Constitution is greater than theirs.
> 
> Here's a hint. The SC rarely overturns itself, especially at the special pleading of someone whose greatest understanding of the Constitution comes from reading some chapter titles in a book.
> 
> So you champion state's rights when it comes to restricting the 2nd Amendment, but want the federal government to overrule when it comes to setting their MW. Why are you inconsistent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
Click to expand...

IOW, you can't articulate a sound reason why you want the federal government to overrule in some areas but insist states have authority in others, that just coincidentally coincide with your pet projects.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You simply don't understand the concepts.  It is about the general power to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general *badfare*.


“Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are begging the question regarding left wing ideology.  It hasn't failed just because you claim it has.
> 
> 
> 
> If it didn’t fail, why are you and Nancy Pelosi desperately begging for the federal government to bailout California & Illinois? And why did Detroit actually file bankruptcy after 69 years of total Dumbocrat control (city council and Mayor)?
Click to expand...

Merely because the States can't print their own money.  It really is that simple.  A central bank is federal doctrine and States cannot go bankrupt to impair in the obligation of contracts.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> IOW, you can't articulate a sound reason why you want the federal government to overrule in some areas but insist states have authority in others, that just coincidentally coincide with your pet projects.


There is no appeal to ignorance of our Tenth Amendment.  It should be about limiting Government to the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.  It is about the general power to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general *badfare*.
> 
> 
> 
> “Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout
Click to expand...

the general badfare is the opposite of the general welfare for disambiguation purposes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.


The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout
> 
> 
> 
> the general badfare is the opposite of the general welfare for disambiguation purposes.
Click to expand...

“Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare is expressed.  There is no general power to promote or provide for the general badfare.
Click to expand...

Let me just wrap this up so we can get back to real life. Madison's writings CLEARLY reveal that he meant the "general welfare" clause did NOT give the federal government unlimited power to do whatever was trendy at the moment in the name of "general welfare". You, OTOH, are convinced that he meant the exact opposite of what the words he wrote actually mean. It is obvious, therefore, that you are in fact wildly wrong and have no intention whatsoever of correcting yourself. Thus, I have no choice but to demote you from general welfare to lieutenant dependent.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance...


That’s not true at all. You clearly find ignorance very appealing.


----------



## hadit

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout
> 
> 
> 
> the general badfare is the opposite of the general welfare for disambiguation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout
Click to expand...

This is generally when he starts going off the rails and just flings things out there, hoping to cloud the issue enough to escape without having to admit he's completely wrong. He'll do it a few times then disappear for a few weeks, only to pop up and do the whole thing all over again, same phrases, same idiotic conclusions, same everything.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.  It is about the general power to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general *badfare*.
> 
> 
> 
> “Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the general badfare is the opposite of the general welfare for disambiguation purposes.
Click to expand...

And you are the opposite of intelligent.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
Click to expand...

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout
> 
> 
> 
> the general badfare is the opposite of the general welfare for disambiguation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Badfare” isn’t a word, you high school dropout
Click to expand...

I have valid arguments not, nothing but fallacy.  It is a word now for this argument.  Next question?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare is expressed.  There is no general power to promote or provide for the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me just wrap this up so we can get back to real life. Madison's writings CLEARLY reveal that he meant the "general welfare" clause did NOT give the federal government unlimited power to do whatever was trendy at the moment in the name of "general welfare". You, OTOH, are convinced that he meant the exact opposite of what the words he wrote actually mean. It is obvious, therefore, that you are in fact wildly wrong and have no intention whatsoever of correcting yourself. Thus, I have no choice but to demote you from general welfare to lieutenant dependent.
Click to expand...

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
Click to expand...

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders say you are full of shit...............
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No.  Only ignorant right wingers allege that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Founders say it right here:
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand what he meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What then did he mean when he said this?
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”*
> 
> Please enlighten us, since you apparently believe he meant the opposite of what those words mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the General Welfare is clearly enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare is expressed.  There is no general power to promote or provide for the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me just wrap this up so we can get back to real life. Madison's writings CLEARLY reveal that he meant the "general welfare" clause did NOT give the federal government unlimited power to do whatever was trendy at the moment in the name of "general welfare". You, OTOH, are convinced that he meant the exact opposite of what the words he wrote actually mean. It is obvious, therefore, that you are in fact wildly wrong and have no intention whatsoever of correcting yourself. Thus, I have no choice but to demote you from general welfare to lieutenant dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
Click to expand...

One incoherent post after another by you.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
Click to expand...

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
Click to expand...

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
Click to expand...

Another incoherent post with made up words.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
Click to expand...

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
Click to expand...

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.


----------



## miketx

California is a self made shithole comparable to none.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
Click to expand...

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.  

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> California is a self made shithole comparable to none.


Still the largest economy in the US and moving toward non-fossil fuels.


----------



## miketx

danielpalos said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is a self made shithole comparable to none.
> 
> 
> 
> Still the largest economy in the US and moving toward non-fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Total unmitigated bullshit. You are a lying sack of shit.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is a self made shithole comparable to none.
> 
> 
> 
> Still the largest economy in the US and moving toward non-fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total unmitigated bullshit. You are a lying sack of shit.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are.  Why do you want to be taken seriously?


----------



## Nostra

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
Click to expand...


Here is what they have to say, but it doesn't help him out.  In fact, it destroys his bullshit.    




From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”












James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what they have to say, but it doesn't help him out.  In fact, it destroys his bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
Click to expand...

Our Commerce Clause has done that.


----------



## danielpalos

Enrolling more militia could enable the State to have more personnel available and help stimulate and automatically stabilize State economies in the process.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

P@triot said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states in this downturn, even those most productive in the past, have no ability to “monetarize debt.” *They will go bankrupt without Federal assistance*.
> 
> 
> 
> And? So? If they didn’t handle their responsibilities properly, they _should_ go bankrupt. Maybe then their ignorant citizens will stop voting for the *failed* left-wing ideology.
Click to expand...


If many states are forced into bankruptcy because the Federal government aids bankrupt crony capitalists but refuses to aid states dependent on taxation (or laid off workers directly), the crucial services states provide will be drastically cut back. Many more workers will be laid off in the middle of a depression and demand will plummet. Layoffs of hospital workers, cops, disruption of crucial infrastructure maintenance, all will result. Some millions may eventually move to other states or rural areas. But not everyone can or will move. Everywhere crime and chaos will increase.

Some lunatic rural Trumpsters may think they can sit back and enjoy another Great Depression, believing it will mostly effect big cities and Democrats, but Republican states will suffer too, and eventually  cutbacks in services and economic decay will hurt everyone. Only the very wealthy will be able to insulate themselves.


----------



## danielpalos

We need national policy to help recover the economy.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what they have to say, but it doesn't help him out.  In fact, it destroys his bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Commerce Clause has done that.
Click to expand...

More nutbaggery.


----------



## danielpalos

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What would be excluded from the general welfare, but the general badfare?


If the immutable character of constitutional text is contested, perhaps this construct called “constitutional law” is as culturally constructed as say, institutionalized powers; indeed, perhaps it was always already law, with the consequence that the distinction between text and interpretation turns out to be no distinction at all.

It would make no sense, then, to define “welfare” as the interpretation of _welfare_, if text itself is a legal category. Text ought not to be conceived merely as the constitutional inscription of meaning on a pregiven text (a juridical conception); but it must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the text itself is established.

As a result, the constitution is not to law as law is to legality; it’s text is also the discursive/judicial means by which “constitutional law” or “a legal” federal government is produced and established as “pre-discursive,” prior to constitutional text, a politically neutral surface on which legality acts.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.


Agreed. And nothing “promotes the general welfare” like small, limited government with low taxes, no regulations, and 0 social programs.

Gladly you finally woke up and agreed with us.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be excluded from the general welfare, but the general badfare?
> 
> 
> 
> If the immutable character of constitutional text is contested, perhaps this construct called “constitutional law” is as culturally constructed as say, institutionalized powers; indeed, perhaps it was always already law, with the consequence that the distinction between text and interpretation turns out to be no distinction at all.
> 
> It would make no sense, then, to define “welfare” as the interpretation of _welfare_, if text itself is a legal category. Text ought not to be conceived merely as the constitutional inscription of meaning on a pregiven text (a juridical conception); but it must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the text itself is established.
> 
> As a result, the constitution is not to law as law is to legality; it’s text is also the discursive/judicial means by which “constitutional law” or “a legal” federal government is produced and established as “pre-discursive,” prior to constitutional text, a politically neutral surface on which legality acts.
Click to expand...

the point is we have a general welfare clause but no general defense clause.


----------



## P@triot

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> If many states are forced into bankruptcy because the Federal government aids bankrupt crony capitalists...


For the record, the federal government should *not* be bailing out any private industry either. Too big to fail is too stupid to buy into.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the point is we have a general welfare clause but no general defense clause.


The point is, you once again avoided the discussion and then tried to deflect with your cut & paste nonsensical platitude.

Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. “General welfare” is *not*. It is the framework for the individual power outlined.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And nothing “promotes the general welfare” like small, limited government with low taxes, no regulations, and 0 social programs.
> 
> Gladly you finally woke up and agreed with us.
Click to expand...

It didn't work for us under the Articles, why should we take that point of view seriously in modern times. 

We can actually solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner in our at-will employment States.  Full employment of capital resources both promotes and provides for the general welfare of our economy by ensuring all individual boats are lifted by the general welfare tide.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the point is we have a general welfare clause but no general defense clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, you once again avoided the discussion and then tried to deflect with your cut & paste nonsensical platitude.
> 
> Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. “General welfare” is *not*. It is the framework for the individual power outlined.
Click to expand...

Providing for the general welfare is expressly declared in our Constitution and is even more Constitutional as a general power than the defense clause as a common power.


----------



## Nostra

The nutbaggery on display is fucking hilarious.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> The nutbaggery on display is fucking hilarious.


Nothing but right wing Hoaxery, how droll.


----------



## miketx

danielpalos said:


> We need national policy to help recover the economy.


Getting rid of democrats would work.


----------



## Tax Man

miketx said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.


----------



## miketx

Tax Man said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
Click to expand...

Come get us shit stain.


----------



## Tax Man

miketx said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
Click to expand...

Soon enough booger boy.


----------



## miketx

Tax Man said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soon enough booger boy.
Click to expand...

Good, We got plenty of ammo for you scum.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.


Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?


----------



## Tax Man

miketx said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soon enough booger boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, We got plenty of ammo for you scum.
Click to expand...

Well all you need to do is learn how to load your weapon and then to hit something with the projectile instead of the butt! As for scum they are mostly in Tezas.


----------



## Nostra

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
Click to expand...

Troll is too dumb for rational thought.


----------



## miketx

Tax Man said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soon enough booger boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, We got plenty of ammo for you scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well all you need to do is learn how to load your weapon and then to hit something with the projectile instead of the butt! As for scum they are mostly in Tezas.
Click to expand...

We all know how to shoot, shit weasel.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
Click to expand...

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
Click to expand...

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.


----------



## miketx

danielpalos said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
Click to expand...

Fake.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
Click to expand...

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are *only to be used for *the *general welfare* and *common defense*, along with *paying the debt*.


So the federal government isn't empowered to use taxes for the Patent Office? Or Postal roads? Or paying salaries of federal employees? First you claim the federal government has unlimited powers, now you claim they have three.

More ignorance from the cross-dressing queen of ignorance


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
Click to expand...

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Nope, using your standard, the right to bear arms is doubly protected.


----------



## hadit

Tax Man said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soon enough booger boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, We got plenty of ammo for you scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well all you need to do is learn how to load your weapon and then to hit something with the projectile instead of the butt! As for scum they are mostly in Tezas.
Click to expand...

You need to meet some real people.


----------



## P@triot

Elon Musk has officially moved operations to Texas. Because, well, California is a shit-hole of left-wing misery that continues to lose good people and good jobs to Texas.


----------



## P@triot

Hahahahaha! Shit-hole California fails again thanks to idiotic left-wing ideology.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are *only to be used for *the *general welfare* and *common defense*, along with *paying the debt*.
> 
> 
> 
> So the federal government isn't empowered to use taxes for the Patent Office? Or Postal roads? Or paying salaries of federal employees? First you claim the federal government has unlimited powers, now you claim they have three.
> 
> More ignorance from the cross-dressing queen of ignorance
Click to expand...

It has to provide for the general welfare as we understand it.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
Click to expand...

No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.   

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
Click to expand...

Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, using your standard, the right to bear arms is doubly protected.
Click to expand...

It should have been, even for homosexuals in the military.  Where was the right wing then?


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The Constitution:   *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Elon Musk has officially moved operations to Texas. Because, well, California is a shit-hole of left-wing misery that continues to lose good people and good jobs to Texas.


We need to upgrade our economy anyway.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Do individuals have the right to peacefully assemble?


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution:   *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*,
> 
> Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.
Click to expand...

the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person.   The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do individuals have the right to peacefully assemble?
Click to expand...

Sure, especially as persons of the People for redress of grievances purposes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general *badfare*


That's because "badfare" *isn't* a word, you high school dropout. Therefore, it wouldn't be in _any_ legal document.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our Constitution is express not implied...


Exactly. And it expressly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. No matter how many times you troll, we'll just keep defeating your propaganda with facts. I promise I am infinitely more relentless than you.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.
Click to expand...

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It should have been, even for homosexuals in the military.  Where was the right wing then?


Homosexuals were *never* denied the right to keep and bear arms. Not in the 1700's. Not in the 1800's. Not in the 1900's. And not in the 2000's. Thanks for playing. You lose.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.


----------



## P@triot

hadit said:


> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.


He does that when he knows he's been defeated. Once he's backed himself into a corner, he'll string together words that he doesn't know in hopes that nobody will understand it, and thus they won't challenge him.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, using your standard, the right to bear arms is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should have been, even for homosexuals in the military.  Where was the right wing then?
Click to expand...

What I said has nothing to do with the military.


----------



## hadit

P@triot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.
> 
> 
> 
> He does that when he knows he's been defeated. Once he's backed himself into a corner, he'll string together words that he doesn't know in hopes that nobody will understand it, and thus they won't challenge him.
Click to expand...

Yup. The time is close at hand when he disappears for a while.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk has officially moved operations to Texas. Because, well, California is a shit-hole of left-wing misery that continues to lose good people and good jobs to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to upgrade our economy anyway.
Click to expand...

Of course you do...because you're ignorant and *failed* left-wing policy keeps running successful companies out of California.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And it expressly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. No matter how many times you troll, we'll just keep defeating your propaganda with facts. I promise I am infinitely more relentless than you.
Click to expand...

You merely appeal to ignorance of actual express law.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution:   *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*,
> 
> Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person.   The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.
Click to expand...

So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.
Click to expand...

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.  Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
Click to expand...

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

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.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You merely appeal to ignorance of actual express law.


You merely resort to projecting once you can't dispute the facts provided.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution:   *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*,
> 
> Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person.   The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?
Click to expand...

Only illegals don't care about express laws.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.  Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?
Click to expand...

There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You merely appeal to ignorance of actual express law.
> 
> 
> 
> You merely resort to projecting once you can't dispute the facts provided.
Click to expand...

You have no facts only Being always Right, in right wing fantasy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution:   *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*,
> 
> Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person.   The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express laws.
Click to expand...

IOW, you know you're busted and are just flinging words out, hoping something will stick.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.  Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.
Click to expand...

You have no sense and no point.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution:   *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*,
> 
> Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person.   The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you know you're busted and are just flinging words out, hoping something will stick.
Click to expand...

Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District


Again...not even a complete or cohere sentence! 

Psst...high school drop out....the "L" in "legislation" shouldn't be capitalized. It is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "C" in "cases" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "D" in "district" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence.

Come on man, this is _basic_ fucking English. No wonder the US Constitution is too complex for you.

Additionally, who are you referring to in your nonsensical babble? Who is supposed to "exercise exclusive legislation in call cases"?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.


Being "legal" to convey thoughts or feelings about the law? 

No wonder nobody takes you seriously about anything. You can't even construct basic sentences properly.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.


And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power. 

You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.  Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
Click to expand...

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

So, to reiterate and expose further the absolute vacuity of your posts, what did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "general welfare"? State it concisely and back it up with quotes from their writings at the time.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution:   *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*,
> 
> Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person.   The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, you know you're busted and are just flinging words out, hoping something will stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.
Click to expand...

How is you flinging words out proving that? Again, you're just stating stuff with no substantiation whatsoever.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.


We shouldn't have to ask for clarification. The onus is on you to use proper grammar and express your thoughts clearly and coherently.


danielpalos said:


> Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?


He's not the one being destroyed on this board by dozens of people. You are.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?


----------



## P@triot

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
> 
> 
> 
> You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.
Click to expand...

That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers _only_. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
> 
> 
> 
> Again...not even a complete or cohere sentence!
> 
> Psst...high school drop out....the "L" in "legislation" shouldn't be capitalized. It is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "C" in "cases" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "D" in "district" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence.
> 
> Come on man, this is _basic_ fucking English. No wonder the US Constitution is too complex for you.
> 
> Additionally, who are you referring to in your nonsensical babble? Who is supposed to "exercise exclusive legislation in call cases"?
Click to expand...

Your appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land is telling; it tells me you are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

It is the social power delegated to Congress by the People.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Being "legal" to convey thoughts or feelings about the law?
> 
> No wonder nobody takes you seriously about anything. You can't even construct basic sentences properly.
Click to expand...

You have nothing but the fallacy of argument ad hominem.  After thrice, it is just a vice.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
Click to expand...

It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.


----------



## hadit

P@triot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
> 
> 
> 
> You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers _only_. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.
Click to expand...

If the cycle holds true, and there's no reason to think it won't, he will shortly disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same arguments presented in exactly the same way. Seriously, a bot is more flexible.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.  Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.
> 
> So, to reiterate and expose further the absolute vacuity of your posts, what did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "general welfare"? State it concisely and back it up with quotes from their writings at the time.
Click to expand...

It provides for a solution to any given contingency in a general top down manner, to provide for any promotion of welfare of the United States.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...

The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment is clear.  The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10th Amendment _is_ clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:
> 
> 
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare"  to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense.  To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing.  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down.  For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.  Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.
> 
> So, to reiterate and expose further the absolute vacuity of your posts, what did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "general welfare"? State it concisely and back it up with quotes from their writings at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It provides for a solution to any given contingency in a general top down manner, to provide for any promotion of welfare of the United States.
Click to expand...

1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.

Seriously, you really need a new schtick.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need national policy to help recover the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of democrats would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get us shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.
> 
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Individual right there.  Collective and plural terms are express not implied.
> 
> for comparison and contrast:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do individuals have the right to peacefully assemble?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, especially as persons of the People for redress of grievances purposes.
Click to expand...

So when the Constitution says in the First Amendment "or the right of the* PEOPLE *to peaceably assemble" it is an individual right.  But when the Constitution says "the right of the *PEOPLE *to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"  you claim it doesn't apply to individuals.

You sir, are a moronic troll of the highest order.


----------



## DGS49

The reference to the words, "general Welfare" when discussing the powers of Congress (often thought of as the powers of the Federal Government) has become a litmus test for Constitutional ignorance.  If you even bring them up, you are an ignoramus.

The words "*general Welfare*" in the Preamble and in Article I, Section 8 are general descriptors which are superseded by the specifics of the "Powers" set forth in Section 8.  This principle was established a couple hundred years ago and is no longer a matter of serious discussion.

As an example that MIGHT get through to those who are not knowledgeable Constitutional commentators, consider the recent history of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law was challenged over the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE - the requirement in the law that every person must buy health insurance, or be deemed a lawbreaker and subject to a financial fine/penalty.

Now, THINK ABOUT THIS:  If the "general Welfare" wording in Article I gave Congress the power to legislate anything that it deemed to promote the general welfare of the country, then *there would have been no problem with the individual mandate*.  It would have been a non-issue, because obviously, Congress deems the individual mandate to promote the general welfare.

But every knowledgeable person knew that the mandate was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as a legal requirement passed by Congress.  None of the enumerated powers in Section 8 contemplates Congress being able to demand that everyone buy health insurance.

Chief Justice Roberts, in his defense of the law (trying to defer to Congress, as he always does), said that the fine/penalty associated with the individual mandate *was really a tax(!)*  - not a legal requirement that you buy insurance.  And obviously, Roberts pointed out, Congress has the power to tax under Article I, and that was the basis on which Obamacare was approved by the Supreme Court.

So in summary, Congress does NOT have the power to legislate anything that it deems to promote the "general Welfare"; its powers are limited to those that can be derived from the 18 enumerated powers.

OBVIOUSLY, Congress and the Supreme Court have expanded the power to "...*regulate commerce...among the several states*..." beyond all rational bounds, and that is how they get away with a national minimum wage law and a thousand other unconstitutional power grabs, but according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress' powers are limited to those 18 enumerated powers and anything that can logically be derived from them.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't have to ask for clarification. The onus is on you to use proper grammar and express your thoughts clearly and coherently.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not the one being destroyed on this board by dozens of people. You are.
Click to expand...

Your problem is, that fallacies proceed being a hypocritical lying false witness bearer. I try to resort to the fewest on general principle.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
Click to expand...

Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
> 
> 
> 
> You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers _only_. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.
Click to expand...

Nobody believes that, not even the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
> 
> 
> 
> You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers _only_. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the cycle holds true, and there's no reason to think it won't, he will shortly disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same arguments presented in exactly the same way. Seriously, a bot is more flexible.
Click to expand...

gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Your problem is, that fallacies proceed being a hypocritical lying false witness bearer.


Wait, a "lying false witness bearer". Um, a "false witness bearer" _is_ a "liar", you redundant dill-hole. Learn the English language already, Chinese troll.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
Click to expand...

Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.


Yep, and the "general welfare" clause applies only within the enumerated powers. The clause is not a power itself. Thank you again, for playing, Chinese troll!


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

"promote the general Welfare",Not "PROVIDE".

You lose again.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.


Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner. 

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is, that fallacies proceed being a hypocritical lying false witness bearer.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, a "lying false witness bearer". Um, a "false witness bearer" _is_ a "liar", you redundant dill-hole. Learn the English language already, Chinese troll.
Click to expand...

I am not the one resorting to the most fallacies.  See I what I meant about this right wing modus operandi, earlier?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?


Bwahahaha! Now the Chinese troll wants to make the case that the Bill of Rights goes in order of "importance" and that the lower number trumps any number above it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I am not the one resorting to the most fallacies.  See I what I meant about this right wing modus operandi, earlier?


But you are the one resorting to any fallacies. The rest of us have spoken 100% truth _only_.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

So?

Do they have descending protections based on their number?  Where is that "expressed" in the Constitution, Troll?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and the "general welfare" clause applies only within the enumerated powers. The clause is not a power itself. Thank you again, for playing, Chinese troll!
Click to expand...

That is not how it is expressed.  

We have the general powers and a recital of particulars as examples and qualifications, not any form of exhaustive list.  Our Founding Fathers were most Excellent, but they were not omniscient.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.


So then I can legally and constitutionally execute anyone who embraces the left-wing ideology like Adolf Hitler did with Jews, right? Don't be a hypocrite now! Don't back out after you made that statement.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and the "general welfare" clause applies only within the enumerated powers. The clause is not a power itself. Thank you again, for playing, Chinese troll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how it is expressed.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how it is "expressed". Just ask the 10th Amendment if you're not clear. If you're _still_ confused, just ask Thomas Jefferson:


> “Congress had *not* *unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*;” - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Albert Gallatin (1817)


Game over. You lose, Chinese troll.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! Now the Chinese troll wants to make the case that the Bill of Rights goes in order of "importance" and that the lower number trumps any number above it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was listed first, for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers used Reason not bigotry.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> So?
> 
> Do they have descending protections based on their number? Where is that "expressed" in the Constitution, Troll?


Our First Amendment is First not Second is the only so, I need.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> 
> 
> So then I can legally and constitutionally execute anyone who embraces the left-wing ideology like Adolf Hitler did with Jews, right? Don't be a hypocrite now! Don't back out after you made that statement.
Click to expand...

How does that promote and provide for the general welfare?  Only the general badfare seems to be favored in your right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and the "general welfare" clause applies only within the enumerated powers. The clause is not a power itself. Thank you again, for playing, Chinese troll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how it is expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly how it is "expressed". Just ask the 10th Amendment if you're not clear. If you're _still_ confused, just ask Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> 
> 
> “Congress had *not* *unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*;” - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Albert Gallatin (1817)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Game over. You lose, Chinese troll.
Click to expand...

The general warfare or general badfare are nowhere expressed at all.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no sense and no point.
> 
> 
> 
> You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers _only_. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the cycle holds true, and there's no reason to think it won't, he will shortly disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same arguments presented in exactly the same way. Seriously, a bot is more flexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant? You do the same thing every time.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

Sure. How is that relevant at all? You seem to believe the entire Constitution is set up in service of a term found in the preamble, yet give no credence to the actual text of the actual Constitution. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
Click to expand...

It cannot be as you allege simply because there must be some duplication of effort on the part of separate and sovereign Governments.  Here is one proof:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
Click to expand...

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. How is that relevant at all? You seem to believe the entire Constitution is set up in service of a term found in the preamble, yet give no credence to the actual text of the actual Constitution. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
Click to expand...

Simply Because our First Amendment is First not Second, for all time.  

Only right wingers, make like confederates instead of loyal members of the Union.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is, that fallacies proceed being a hypocritical lying false witness bearer.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, a "lying false witness bearer". Um, a "false witness bearer" _is_ a "liar", you redundant dill-hole. Learn the English language already, Chinese troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one resorting to the most fallacies.  See I what I meant about this right wing modus operandi, earlier?
Click to expand...

I do believe you are unintentionally echoing the black knight. Since you don't know who that is, look it up in relation to Monty Python.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
Click to expand...

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. How is that relevant at all? You seem to believe the entire Constitution is set up in service of a term found in the preamble, yet give no credence to the actual text of the actual Constitution. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply Because our First Amendment is First not Second, for all time.
> 
> Only right wingers, make like confederates instead of loyal members of the Union.
Click to expand...

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble. Thus, you are subverting the Constitution itself to serve one reason given for its existence. IOW, the personal right to bear arms, using your standard, serves the "general welfare". Did you ever consider that?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and the "general welfare" clause applies only within the enumerated powers. The clause is not a power itself. Thank you again, for playing, Chinese troll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how it is expressed.
> 
> We have the general powers and a recital of particulars as examples and qualifications, not any form of exhaustive list.  Our Founding Fathers were most Excellent, but they were not omniscient.
Click to expand...

What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " The powers not delegated to the United *States* by the *Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the *States*, are *reserved to the States* respectively, or to the people". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It cannot be as you allege simply because there must be some duplication of effort on the part of separate and sovereign Governments.  Here is one proof:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
Click to expand...

No, the text is clear. The federal government is restricted to certain powers. All others are reserved to the states and the people.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is *not* a power.
> 
> You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment is First not Second.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. How is that relevant at all? You seem to believe the entire Constitution is set up in service of a term found in the preamble, yet give no credence to the actual text of the actual Constitution. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply Because our First Amendment is First not Second, for all time.
> 
> Only right wingers, make like confederates instead of loyal members of the Union.
Click to expand...

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
Click to expand...

Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.


However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " The powers not delegated to the United *States* by the *Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the *States*, are *reserved to the States* respectively, or to the people". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.


Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It cannot be as you allege simply because there must be some duplication of effort on the part of separate and sovereign Governments.  Here is one proof:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the text is clear. The federal government is restricted to certain powers. All others are reserved to the states and the people.
Click to expand...

Providing for the welfare General of our Republic is one of those restrictions on the use of social power.


----------



## Ben Thomson

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


And prior to the COVID crisis it was also the fifth largest economy in the world...interesting.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?


That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
Click to expand...

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.


----------



## P@triot

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant? You do the same thing every time.
Click to expand...

Well he is a Chinese disinformation troll. They are paid by the post and are referred to as the 50 Cent Army (due to what they are paid per post). He's not interested in facts. He's interested in posting as much propaganda as possible.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> They did not mean the general *badfare*...


That's because it's not possible to mean a word that doesn't exist, Chinese disinformation troll!


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " The powers not delegated to the United *States* by the *Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the *States*, are *reserved to the States* respectively, or to the people". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.
Click to expand...

And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It cannot be as you allege simply because there must be some duplication of effort on the part of separate and sovereign Governments.  Here is one proof:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the text is clear. The federal government is restricted to certain powers. All others are reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing for the welfare General of our Republic is one of those restrictions on the use of social power.
Click to expand...

And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
Click to expand...

The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people. 

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant? You do the same thing every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he is a Chinese disinformation troll. They are paid by the post and are referred to as the 50 Cent Army (due to what they are paid per post). He's not interested in facts. He's interested in posting as much propaganda as possible.
Click to expand...

Y'all have nothing but fallacy, trolls masquerading as hypocrites.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not mean the general *badfare*...
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it's not possible to mean a word that doesn't exist, Chinese disinformation troll!
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  It is simple and compares and contrasts with what was used in our federal Constitution.  

We could simplify it for the right wing.  It should be about the general Good not the general Bad.


----------



## HenryBHough

Ah, California!  Rapidly becoming the most unequal state in this former nation.  The productive middle class taxed out.  Jobs regulated out.  Leaving the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor.

Wanna bet on which of those two classes will be next to take a hike?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
Click to expand...

You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " The powers not delegated to the United *States* by the *Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the *States*, are *reserved to the States* respectively, or to the people". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?
Click to expand...

Both promote and provide are terms used in reference to the welfare clause but not the defense clause.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
Click to expand...

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?


----------



## danielpalos

HenryBHough said:


> Ah, California!  Rapidly becoming the most unequal state in this former nation.  The productive middle class taxed out.  Jobs regulated out.  Leaving the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor.
> 
> Wanna bet on which of those two classes will be next to take a hike?


Automatic stabilization solutions now!


----------



## Nostra

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
Click to expand...

I doubt he has ever read the Constitution.  And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.


----------



## danielpalos

Y'all have nothing but Hoax not any valid arguments for rebuttal.  Nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise; why are y'all such hypocrites when blacks do it?

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.--The Federalist Number Forty-one


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.
Click to expand...

You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " The powers not delegated to the United *States* by the *Constitution*, nor prohibited by it to the *States*, are *reserved to the States* respectively, or to the people". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both promote and provide are terms used in reference to the welfare clause but not the defense clause.
Click to expand...

And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.


----------



## hadit

Nostra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt he has ever read the Constitution.  And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.
Click to expand...

He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.


----------



## Nostra

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
Click to expand...

Keep pushing him and he will make up more words.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Y'all have nothing but Hoax not any valid arguments for rebuttal.  Nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise; why are y'all such hypocrites when blacks do it?
> 
> Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.--The Federalist Number Forty-one


You've officially lost it. Back up what you claim with contemporary writings or admit you have no clue.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.
Click to expand...

go ahead and look up the word and post it for us.  i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies. 

welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?





			welfare - Google Search


----------



## miketx

California is bleeding people and businesses and the dictator governor is ruining everything he can. Notice how the same group of liars always denies everything and sings kumbaya? lol


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
Click to expand...

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt he has ever read the Constitution.  And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.
Click to expand...

y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all have nothing but Hoax not any valid arguments for rebuttal.  Nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise; why are y'all such hypocrites when blacks do it?
> 
> Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.--The Federalist Number Forty-one
> 
> 
> 
> You've officially lost it. Back up what you claim with contemporary writings or admit you have no clue.
Click to expand...

You simply appeal to ignorance like usual for the Right Wing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt he has ever read the Constitution.  And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.
Click to expand...

Then support your assertion. Quote the writers of the Constitution on what they meant by the term, "general welfare".


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all have nothing but Hoax not any valid arguments for rebuttal.  Nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise; why are y'all such hypocrites when blacks do it?
> 
> Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.--The Federalist Number Forty-one
> 
> 
> 
> You've officially lost it. Back up what you claim with contemporary writings or admit you have no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply appeal to ignorance like usual for the Right Wing.
Click to expand...

Then support your assertion.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> go ahead and look up the word and post it for us.  i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.
> 
> welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?
Click to expand...

No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
Click to expand...

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.


----------



## miketx

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare". We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
Click to expand...

It's pointless to try to get anything out of these leftist assholes.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt he has ever read the Constitution.  And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then support your assertion. Quote the writers of the Constitution on what they meant by the term, "general welfare".
Click to expand...

This is what it has to mean now:



			welfare - Google Search


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> go ahead and look up the word and post it for us.  i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.
> 
> welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today.  The powers are general enough to handle it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
Click to expand...

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.


----------



## 22lcidw

The rich will always destroy themselves. Their shit does not smell anymore. In history every wealthy entity does the same thing. In reality or myth...King Arthur and Camelot was an example. We had it and threw it away.


----------



## Stryker___777

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


I grew up there. Used to be a lot better. Then they started going to war against the average American lifestyle and try to create this unworkable utopia where plastic bags don't exist anymore, gas-powered cars are illegal (wtf??) and everyone rides bicycles or uses public transit, while happily living in high rise low cost cramped apartments, even as the techie elites laugh their way to the bank.  They purposely reduce lanes, encourage traffic jams, they want to make driving so time-consuming that it becomes unviable. There is a full-blown war on cars in California... even as the legislators drive their BMWs alone to work.
They give you $500 tickets for driving in HOV lane. They raise the bridge tolls to $8 to discourage people from driving to work, even though people HAVE to drive.
The legislature lives in a fantasy bubble and forces all of CA to obey irrational, unworkable regulations and the obsession with climate change and fake racial equality is on the level of medieval fanaticism. It only gets worse with time. 1-party state.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.  

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what they meant when they wrote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is what we are supposed to be doing:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt he has ever read the Constitution.  And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then support your assertion. Quote the writers of the Constitution on what they meant by the term, "general welfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what it has to mean now:
> 
> 
> 
> welfare - Google Search
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. If they wrote about people being gay in the Constitution, it wouldn't have anything to do with homosexuals, because the meaning of that term didn't change until long after it was written. You don't get to re-interpret a document based on changed word meanings since it was written.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
Click to expand...

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.


----------



## danielpalos

22lcidw said:


> The rich will always destroy themselves. Their shit does not smell anymore. In history every wealthy entity does the same thing. In reality or myth...King Arthur and Camelot was an example. We had it and threw it away.


Should we pester Communists for a simple plan for a Commune of Heaven on Earth?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> go ahead and look up the word and post it for us.  i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.
> 
> welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today.  The powers are general enough to handle it.
Click to expand...

Of course. The actual meaning still applies. The federal government does not have unlimited power. Even Joe Biden understands that. Too bad you don't.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
Click to expand...

Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
Click to expand...

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> go ahead and look up the word and post it for us.  i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.
> 
> welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today.  The powers are general enough to handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The actual meaning still applies. The federal government does not have unlimited power. Even Joe Biden understands that. Too bad you don't.
Click to expand...

That is Your red herring.  I understand the difference between the general welfare and the general badfare.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
Click to expand...

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
Click to expand...

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
Click to expand...

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.  

New cities in more optimum locations!


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
> 
> 
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government.  Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it.  We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply being disingenuous.  They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare.  It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> go ahead and look up the word and post it for us.  i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.
> 
> welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today.  The powers are general enough to handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. The actual meaning still applies. The federal government does not have unlimited power. Even Joe Biden understands that. Too bad you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your red herring.  I understand the difference between the general welfare and the general badfare.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The power of the federal government is limited, even if you make up words that don't exist.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
Click to expand...

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
Click to expand...

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
Click to expand...

We can also use a federal research university system.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
Click to expand...

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.


----------



## Dick Foster

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
Click to expand...

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.


----------



## hadit

Dick Foster said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
Click to expand...

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
Click to expand...

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
Click to expand...

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.  

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
Click to expand...

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant? You do the same thing every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he is a Chinese disinformation troll. They are paid by the post and are referred to as the 50 Cent Army (due to what they are paid per post). He's not interested in facts. He's interested in posting as much propaganda as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all have nothing but fallacy, trolls masquerading as hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Well I exposed _you_, didn't I?


----------



## Nostra

Why are you fellas wasting your time on this troll?


----------



## hadit

Nostra said:


> Why are you fellas wasting your time on this troll?


It's fun watching him do exactly what we predict.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?
Click to expand...

No one is claiming that.  Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses.  General solutions from the top down must be found.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.
Click to expand...

You are the only one claiming that.  Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant? You do the same thing every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he is a Chinese disinformation troll. They are paid by the post and are referred to as the 50 Cent Army (due to what they are paid per post). He's not interested in facts. He's interested in posting as much propaganda as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all have nothing but fallacy, trolls masquerading as hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I exposed _you_, didn't I?
Click to expand...

All you exposed was your ignorance of Constitutional law.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> Why are you fellas wasting your time on this troll?


Projecting much, trolls?  Only trolls have nothing but fallacy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal.  Even ogres have better arguments than Trolls like y'all.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It should be about the general Good not the general Bad.


Asking the federal government to act unconstitutionally is asking it to act "for the general bad".


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming that.  Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses.  General solutions from the top down must be found.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that.  Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be about the general Good not the general Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Asking the federal government to act unconstitutionally is asking it to act "for the general bad".
Click to expand...

Good thing we should be promoting and providing for the general welfare not the general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming that.  Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses.  General solutions from the top down must be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that.  Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?
Click to expand...

It exists now.   I just told you what it was.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming that.  Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses.  General solutions from the top down must be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that.  Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists now.   I just told you what it was.
Click to expand...

No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming that.  Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses.  General solutions from the top down must be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?
Click to expand...

Only you are begging that question.  I already know that is not the case since there is no provision for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  The general welfare is not any of those others, thus cannot do what right wingers love to plead, so specially.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that.  Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists now.   I just told you what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.
Click to expand...

Every word was just made up at one time or another.  The general badfare cannot be the same as the general welfare or general goodfare.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming that.  Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses.  General solutions from the top down must be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only you are begging that question.  I already know that is not the case since there is no provision for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  The general welfare is not any of those others, thus cannot do what right wingers love to plead, so specially.
Click to expand...

No, you have been arguing that the federal government is not limited in what it can do. Only now are you saying that it is. What changed your mind?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that.  Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists now.   I just told you what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every word was just made up at one time or another.  The general badfare cannot be the same as the general welfare or general goodfare.
Click to expand...

New words have to be agreed upon to have meaning. Yours are not agreed upon, thus have no meaning except to you.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
> 2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
> 
> Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.
> 
> All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they said it means then.  Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.
> 
> The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is claiming that.  Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses.  General solutions from the top down must be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only you are begging that question.  I already know that is not the case since there is no provision for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  The general welfare is not any of those others, thus cannot do what right wingers love to plead, so specially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you have been arguing that the federal government is not limited in what it can do. Only now are you saying that it is. What changed your mind?
Click to expand...

lol.  Only You have been claiming that.  You are trying to allege that Congress cannot find solutions that provide for the general welfare for any given contingency that comes along.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your misconception.  I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.  Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.
> 
> New cities in more optimum locations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
> 2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that.  Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists now.   I just told you what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every word was just made up at one time or another.  The general badfare cannot be the same as the general welfare or general goodfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New words have to be agreed upon to have meaning. Yours are not agreed upon, thus have no meaning except to you.
Click to expand...

Do you agree that the general badfare is not the same as the general goodfare or the general welfare?


----------



## Nostra

The guys who wrote the Constitution say lil Danny is a nutbag.



From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”













James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> The guys who wrote the Constitution say lil Danny is a nutbag.
> 
> 
> 
> From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.
> 
> According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.
> 
> Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
> 
> In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:
> 
> “I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”
> 
> Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:
> 
> “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – *for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless*…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. *I contend that no such power is given.”* [emphasis mine]
> 
> As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.
> 
> This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:
> 
> “With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, *which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators*.”[emphasis mine]
> 
> Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:
> 
> “provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, *you know, was the federal doctrine*…that 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; consequently, *that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money*.” [emphasis mine]
> 
> The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:
> 
> “…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….
> 
> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792
> 
> It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.
> 
> So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an *absurdly out of control federal government.*
> 
> As Madison himself said,
> 
> “I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”
> 
> Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.
> 
> The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”


Not every Thing qualifies as the general welfare.

_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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare._--The Federalist Number Forty-One


----------



## Nostra

I will take these guys over a braindead, Libtard innerweb hack any day...................


*The Founders and the “general welfare”*
The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government. However, even a perfect document cannot stand up to philosophical evasion and corruption. Without the proper moral base, the principles of the Constitution could not be defended, much less kept alive.
To illustrate this, let us consider a few words in the preamble of the Constitution—what is commonly called the general welfare clause. This clause states that one of the reasons for the Constitution is to “promote the general welfare”.
As they are commonly used, terms such as “general welfare”, or “common good,” or “public interest” are undefinable. As these terms are generally used, they mean that society is to be considered apart from the individuals comprising it. The good of society supersedes the good of any individual.
There is no such entity as “the public”, there are only individuals. These terms actually mean that some individuals take precedence over other individuals, that some may impose their values on others.
The Founders, particularly Madison, understood that the general welfare clause could be abused. In the debate over the Cod Fishery Bill in 1792, Madison stated:


> If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.


Thomas Jefferson called the phrase “a mere ‘grammatical quibble’ that has countenanced the general government in a claim of universal power”. He mistakenly believed that the Founder’s had clarified their intentions and meaning, and debate over the meaning of the phrase would cease.
The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders.
Those who sought to expand government’s powers chose to ignore the explanations offered by the Founders. Corrupted by bad philosophy, they rejected the principles of the Founders and of the Constitution.




__





						The Founders and the “general welfare” « IndividualRightsGovernmentWrongs.com
					






					individualrightsgovernmentwrongs.com


----------



## danielpalos

Solving simple poverty through equal protection of the laws using existing legal and physical infrastructure promotes and can provide for the general welfare.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Good thing we should be promoting and providing for the general welfare not the general warfare.


Good thing the "general welfare" is limited to the federal government's 18 enumerated powers!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.


Only if you're attracted _to_ ignorance. You are, for some reason.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It exists now.   I just told you what it was.


Fake words don't exist just because you speak them. If you want to be an effective member of the Chinese 50 Cent Army, you need to first master the native language of the nation you are attempting to spread propaganda in.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we should be promoting and providing for the general welfare not the general warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing the "general welfare" is limited to the federal government's 18 enumerated powers!
Click to expand...

What you say cannot be possible.  Those are examples and qualifications of what was meant by the general welfare and common defense.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It exists now.   I just told you what it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake words don't exist just because you speak them. If you want to be an effective member of the Chinese 50 Cent Army, you need to first master the native language of the nation you are attempting to spread propaganda in.
Click to expand...

Not fake at all.  It helps define the context.  Only right wingers have nothing but Hoax.


----------



## MeBelle

danielpalos said:


> What you say cannot be possible.  Those are examples and qualifications of what was meant by the general welfare and common defense.



Give us a list of qualifications please.   tia


----------



## danielpalos

MeBelle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you say cannot be possible.  Those are examples and qualifications of what was meant by the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us a list of qualifications please.   tia
Click to expand...

Article One section Eight:

*The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; 

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;*

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
....

Examples and qualifications, nothing more.


----------



## Nostra

I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.


That is your story.  Fantasy and Hoax is what you usually have.  Our Founding Fathers expressed what they thought necessary and proper for Government.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your story.  Fantasy and Hoax is what you usually have.  Our Founding Fathers expressed what they thought necessary and proper for Government.
Click to expand...

Not my story.  It's not on the list.

You lose again.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your story.  Fantasy and Hoax is what you usually have.  Our Founding Fathers expressed what they thought necessary and proper for Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my story.  It's not on the list.
> 
> You lose again.
Click to expand...

Providing for the general welfare is on the list, so who cares what You fantasize about right winger.


----------



## Nostra

I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.


You don't see a general warfare clause nor general malfare clause, either.  Go ahead right wingers, lower your tax burden.


----------



## Nostra

I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> I don't see "Take money from producers and hand it to loser deadbeats" anywhere on that list.


Only lousy management has no fine capital solutions but want to blame the social Poor.  Free market capitalism, where are Your solutions right wingers?


----------



## Nostra

Abortion  isn't "expressed" in the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Individual liberty is recognized by our federal Constitution.  There is no express clause for regulating abortion.


----------



## Nostra

Just read the Constitution again..............didn't see "handouts" anywhere in it.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> Just read the Constitution again..............didn't see "handouts" anywhere in it.


You are the one claiming they are handouts.  Promoting the general welfare is justified by our Constitution.


----------



## Nostra

"General" doesn't mean "individual".

Handouts go to individuals.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Not fake at all.


Badfare is *not* a word. Therefore, it is fake. Learn the native language of the nation you are targeting next time.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> There is no express clause for regulating abortion.


There is no "express clause" for "regulating" *murder*. Am I allowed to commit murder, China troll?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What you say cannot be possible.


And yet it _is_. Those were *not* "examples", China troll. Those were the specific 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states.

Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers are illegal. Just ask the 10th Amendment!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our Founding Fathers expressed what they thought necessary and proper for Government.


Yep, and conservatives are the _only_ one's who have quoted the founders in this thread. You haven't. Not once. We've quoted the great Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Providing for the general welfare is on the list...


Except that it's *not*, China troll. It's not a power at all. Never has been. Never will be.


----------



## initforme

What happens in california doesn't affect me.  I don't live there so it's not in my interests to consider it.  Common sense.  Too bad many of you completely lack it.  Who cares what they do there?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You don't see a general warfare clause...


I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Free market capitalism, where are Your solutions right wingers?


Trump provided them on our behalf. It resulted in record market highs and record low unemployment. Literally unprecedented prosperity.

That's why you're so pissed off. As a member fo the Chinese 50 Cent Army, the policies that Made America Great Again hurt China and their failed left-wing ideology.


----------



## initforme

I voted for neither candidate.  I feel so liberated and proud.  You are welcome.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> "General" doesn't mean "individual".
> 
> Handouts go to individuals.


lol.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.  Corporate welfare is paid to artificial persons.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express clause for regulating abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" *murder*. Am I allowed to commit murder, China troll?
> 
> View attachment 427509
Click to expand...

That would mean so much more, if right wingers actually believed in natural rights, not just in abortion threads.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general warfare clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
Click to expand...

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.


----------



## Nostra

Libnut Dimwinger Troll:

"People" in the First Amendment means individuals.
"People" in the Second Amendment doesn't mean individuals.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> "General" doesn't mean "individual".
> 
> Handouts go to individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.  Corporate welfare is paid to artificial persons.
Click to expand...

^^^^Panics.  Tries to change the subject^^^^


----------



## Nostra

Let's take a look at how the Gubmint has done with the "General Welfare" as the Dimbulb hack Troll defines it:

*The War on Poverty After 50 Years*

*SUMMARY*

*In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.









						The War on Poverty After 50 Years
					

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This...




					www.heritage.org
				



*


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express clause for regulating abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" *murder*. Am I allowed to commit murder, China troll?
> 
> View attachment 427509
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would mean so much more, if right wingers actually believed in natural rights, not just in abortion threads.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
Click to expand...

You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> What happens in california doesn't affect me.  I don't live there so it's not in my interests to consider it.  Common sense.  Too bad many of you completely lack it.  Who cares what they do there?


*1.* It does effect you. Democrats in Congress are currently working on a federal bailout for California. That is your tax dollars.

*2.* It’s important to point out what policies fail so others don’t repeat them. If you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Now stop being so damn ignorant.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> Libnut Dimwinger Troll:
> 
> "People" in the First Amendment means individuals.
> "People" in the Second Amendment doesn't mean individuals.


Not at all.  Words express what they mean.  No individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment says it all.   There is nothing to imply since our supreme law of the land is Express.


----------



## danielpalos

initforme said:


> What happens in california doesn't affect me.  I don't live there so it's not in my interests to consider it.  Common sense.  Too bad many of you completely lack it.  Who cares what they do there?


Just right wingers being frivolous and full of Hoax.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free market capitalism, where are Your solutions right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump provided them on our behalf. It resulted in record market highs and record low unemployment. Literally unprecedented prosperity.
> 
> That's why you're so pissed off. As a member fo the Chinese 50 Cent Army, the policies that Made America Great Again hurt China and their failed left-wing ideology.
Click to expand...


Homelessness and equality was still growing under the best of right wing economic times.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> "General" doesn't mean "individual".
> 
> Handouts go to individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.  Corporate welfare is paid to artificial persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^Panics.  Tries to change the subject^^^^
Click to expand...

^^^Really is clueless and Causeless, and refuses to know it.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> Let's take a look at how the Gubmint has done with the "General Welfare" as the Dimbulb hack Troll defines it:
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> *SUMMARY
> 
> In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War on Poverty After 50 Years
> 
> 
> This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.heritage.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes actually existed when the general welfare was being contemplated back then.  

Equality and equal protection of the laws is all we need to socially solve simple poverty in our Republic.


----------



## Nostra

The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express clause for regulating abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" *murder*. Am I allowed to commit murder, China troll?
> 
> View attachment 427509
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would mean so much more, if right wingers actually believed in natural rights, not just in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
Click to expand...

Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
Click to expand...

There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.


Yes, it is Express not Implied in any clueless and Causeless, right wing way.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Express not Implied in any clueless and Causeless, right wing way.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express clause for regulating abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" *murder*. Am I allowed to commit murder, China troll?
> 
> View attachment 427509
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would mean so much more, if right wingers actually believed in natural rights, not just in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Express not Implied in any clueless and Causeless, right wing way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

Projection not valid arguments is all you have.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express clause for regulating abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" *murder*. Am I allowed to commit murder, China troll?
> 
> View attachment 427509
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would mean so much more, if right wingers actually believed in natural rights, not just in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law only valid arguments in political not legal forums.  No judge is going to take You seriously in that venue, knowing that now, why should I take right wingers seriously now?


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
Click to expand...

We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon who struts around the board knocking all the pieces over, then takes a crap on it and proclaims itself the finest chess player ever. Seriously, dude, just proclaiming yourself the winner only makes you look sillier.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express clause for regulating abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" *murder*. Am I allowed to commit murder, China troll?
> 
> View attachment 427509
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would mean so much more, if right wingers actually believed in natural rights, not just in abortion threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law only valid arguments in political not legal forums.  No judge is going to take You seriously in that venue, knowing that now, why should I take right wingers seriously now?
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...

You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Express not Implied in any clueless and Causeless, right wing way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection not valid arguments is all you have.
Click to expand...

And yet you show nothing to support your argument.


----------



## Nostra

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
Click to expand...

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon who struts around the board knocking all the pieces over, then takes a crap on it and proclaims itself the finest chess player ever. Seriously, dude, just proclaiming yourself the winner only makes you look sillier.
Click to expand...

Yet, Y'all are the ones with nothing but fallacy of appeals to ignorance, and your usual ad hominems, instead of any valid arguments. 

Our welfare clause is not common but general.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Express not Implied in any clueless and Causeless, right wing way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection not valid arguments is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you show nothing to support your argument.
Click to expand...

We have a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause.  

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 

*to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; *

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Express not Implied in any clueless and Causeless, right wing way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection not valid arguments is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you show nothing to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
> 
> *to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; *
> 
> but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
Click to expand...

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon who struts around the board knocking all the pieces over, then takes a crap on it and proclaims itself the finest chess player ever. Seriously, dude, just proclaiming yourself the winner only makes you look sillier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Y'all are the ones with nothing but fallacy of appeals to ignorance, and your usual ad hominems, instead of any valid arguments.
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.
Click to expand...

Our appeal is to the people who wrote the Constitution. Your appeal is to your own opinion. Which is more authoritative? And no, I do not expect you to answer that with any coherence.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
Click to expand...

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not "express", Dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is Express not Implied in any clueless and Causeless, right wing way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection not valid arguments is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you show nothing to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
> 
> *to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; *
> 
> but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

to provide for the general Welfare of the United States is a general power for that purpose.

A general clause means providing for any given contingency in a general, top down manner as opposed to a more common under the law, manner and fashion.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon who struts around the board knocking all the pieces over, then takes a crap on it and proclaims itself the finest chess player ever. Seriously, dude, just proclaiming yourself the winner only makes you look sillier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Y'all are the ones with nothing but fallacy of appeals to ignorance, and your usual ad hominems, instead of any valid arguments.
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our appeal is to the people who wrote the Constitution. Your appeal is to your own opinion. Which is more authoritative? And no, I do not expect you to answer that with any coherence.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is not common but general.  Provide a valid argument not the fallacy of diversion and Hoax by appealing not from ignorance but to ignorance.  

I must be Right even though I am on the left; since, if You don't know it, I am Right even though I am on the left.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
Click to expand...

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon who struts around the board knocking all the pieces over, then takes a crap on it and proclaims itself the finest chess player ever. Seriously, dude, just proclaiming yourself the winner only makes you look sillier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Y'all are the ones with nothing but fallacy of appeals to ignorance, and your usual ad hominems, instead of any valid arguments.
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our appeal is to the people who wrote the Constitution. Your appeal is to your own opinion. Which is more authoritative? And no, I do not expect you to answer that with any coherence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.  Provide a valid argument not the fallacy of diversion and Hoax by appealing not from ignorance but to ignorance.
> 
> I must be Right even though I am on the left; since, if You don't know it, I am Right even though I am on the left.
Click to expand...

And once again you prove me totally correct. You did not answer with any coherence. You know, you could try answering a direct question now and then.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
Click to expand...

I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.  

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon who struts around the board knocking all the pieces over, then takes a crap on it and proclaims itself the finest chess player ever. Seriously, dude, just proclaiming yourself the winner only makes you look sillier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Y'all are the ones with nothing but fallacy of appeals to ignorance, and your usual ad hominems, instead of any valid arguments.
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our appeal is to the people who wrote the Constitution. Your appeal is to your own opinion. Which is more authoritative? And no, I do not expect you to answer that with any coherence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.  Provide a valid argument not the fallacy of diversion and Hoax by appealing not from ignorance but to ignorance.
> 
> I must be Right even though I am on the left; since, if You don't know it, I am Right even though I am on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me totally correct. You did not answer with any coherence. You know, you could try answering a direct question now and then.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe our common defense clause can be used like a general defense clause but not our general welfare clause?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
Click to expand...

There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

general Welfare of the United States

It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

Diversions are also usually considered fallacies.  See Why I believe right wingers have nothing but frivolous Hoax instead of any valid arguments.  Promoting the general welfare is ethical and moral under our Constitutional form of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

You need valid arguments not merely the fallacy of diversion because you have no Point and no valid argument to Prove it.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need valid arguments not merely the fallacy of diversion because you have no Point and no valid argument to Prove it.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We might as well be playing chess with a pigeon who struts around the board knocking all the pieces over, then takes a crap on it and proclaims itself the finest chess player ever. Seriously, dude, just proclaiming yourself the winner only makes you look sillier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Y'all are the ones with nothing but fallacy of appeals to ignorance, and your usual ad hominems, instead of any valid arguments.
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our appeal is to the people who wrote the Constitution. Your appeal is to your own opinion. Which is more authoritative? And no, I do not expect you to answer that with any coherence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is not common but general.  Provide a valid argument not the fallacy of diversion and Hoax by appealing not from ignorance but to ignorance.
> 
> I must be Right even though I am on the left; since, if You don't know it, I am Right even though I am on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me totally correct. You did not answer with any coherence. You know, you could try answering a direct question now and then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe our common defense clause can be used like a general defense clause but not our general welfare clause?
Click to expand...

I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases are dumb.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
Click to expand...

So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
Click to expand...

Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need valid arguments not merely the fallacy of diversion because you have no Point and no valid argument to Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

Still not dumb enough for the right wing?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need valid arguments not merely the fallacy of diversion because you have no Point and no valid argument to Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not dumb enough for the right wing?
Click to expand...

And the pigeon takes another lap around the chess board.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.


There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.  

We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
Click to expand...

general Welfare of the United States

It does not say common welfare of the United States.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?
Click to expand...

Then post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that show defense is less important than welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
Click to expand...

The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?


----------



## Nostra

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
Click to expand...

Actually, it requires just the opposite according to the Founders.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that show defense is less important than welfare.
Click to expand...

The terms used.  General welfare not common welfare.  Common defense not general defense.  Only the hypocritical right wing appeal to ignorance of their own, alleged doctrine.

We are not supposed to have a large standing army; and is Why Congress has to renew those expenditures bi-annually.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

If a general clause can't do it, why do you believe a common clause can?


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is our actual supreme law of the land.   It is express not implied by right wing fantasy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
Click to expand...

You really don't listen, do you?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?
Click to expand...

Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our actual supreme law of the land.   It is express not implied by right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...

What do you think that really means?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

And we're right back to where we started, here:

So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".
Click to expand...

using the word and term, General infers it.   They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that show defense is less important than welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used.  General welfare not common welfare.  Common defense not general defense.  Only the hypocritical right wing appeal to ignorance of their own, alleged doctrine.
> 
> We are not supposed to have a large standing army; and is Why Congress has to renew those expenditures bi-annually.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're right back to where we started, here:
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
Click to expand...

You miss the point.  Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using the word and term, General infers it.   They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that show defense is less important than welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used.  General welfare not common welfare.  Common defense not general defense.  Only the hypocritical right wing appeal to ignorance of their own, alleged doctrine.
> 
> We are not supposed to have a large standing army; and is Why Congress has to renew those expenditures bi-annually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

I quote our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers are illegal enough to appeal to ignorance of it.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply pointing out to you that your attempts to lower the importance of the defense mandate while raising the importance of the welfare clause is ridiculous. The writers of the Constitution did not consider welfare more important than defense, so your attempts to be cute by stringing together your phrases is dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> There must be a difference.  The general welfare cannot be less general than a common defense clause.
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause.  Why do right wingers believe anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that show defense is less important than welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The terms used.  General welfare not common welfare.  Common defense not general defense.  Only the hypocritical right wing appeal to ignorance of their own, alleged doctrine.
> 
> We are not supposed to have a large standing army; and is Why Congress has to renew those expenditures bi-annually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quote our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers are illegal enough to appeal to ignorance of it.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using the word and term, General infers it.   They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is general enough to promote the general welfare by solving simple poverty.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using the word and term, General infers it.   They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.
Click to expand...

So they didn't, and you believe it does, so you keep insisting it is so without any support for your opinion. Your opinion is summarily dismissed.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using the word and term, General infers it.   They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they didn't, and you believe it does, so you keep insisting it is so without any support for your opinion. Your opinion is summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...

You appeal to ignorance of any dictionary.  I have valid arguments not just excuses and bigotry.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're right back to where we started, here:
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.
Click to expand...

They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're right back to where we started, here:
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding of anything but bigotry, protesting too much, and making excuses.  

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're right back to where we started, here:
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding of anything but bigotry, protesting too much, and making excuses.
> 
> There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty
Click to expand...

How does that relate to the terms "general" and "common" and their relative importance?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're right back to where we started, here:
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding of anything but bigotry, protesting too much, and making excuses.
> 
> There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to the terms "general" and "common" and their relative importance?
Click to expand...

What does one power authorize but not the other?  Right wingers allege everything can be done for the "common" defense but not the "General" welfare.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you  multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"    trumps their reasoning.  It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It is not the common welfare of the United States.  A general clause must provide for comprehensive, top down solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term general defines it if we have to quibble.  Want to argue and quibble about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using the word and term, General infers it.   They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is general enough to promote the general welfare by solving simple poverty.
Click to expand...

Solving simple poverty?

Just more dumbassery by you.  How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty? 


*The War on Poverty After 50 Years

SUMMARY

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.*


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause and no common welfare clause; only the right wing appeals to cluelessness and Causelessness while wanting to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart.  You don't.  You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those chances for you right wingers to find flaws in my line of reasoning and start making fun of me for being as full of fallacy as right wingers but want to be taken even more seroiusly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause.  Our welfare clause is general not common.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think that makes a difference. Now, is the power of the federal government to do things in the name of the "general welfare" limited or unlimited? Because you seem to be saying both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be a difference between a general welfare clause and a common welfare clause.  Our Constitution is clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> general Welfare of the United States
> 
> It does not say common welfare of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't listen, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution.  Any dictionary will do for definitions.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're right back to where we started, here:
> 
> So post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that make clear what they meant by the terms "general" and "common". Not your personal opinions, not something you read that agrees with you, quotes from them. We have a lot of scholarly papers that they wrote explaining what they meant by various things, quote them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes right wingers seriously about their understanding of anything but bigotry, protesting too much, and making excuses.
> 
> There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to the terms "general" and "common" and their relative importance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does one power authorize but not the other?  Right wingers allege everything can be done for the "common" defense but not the "General" welfare.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*


Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then. 

All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic. 

We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


I gave you the answer.  You prefer to appeal to ignorance by misunderstanding the authors you cite.


----------



## danielpalos

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.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Any questions?


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

This is more relevant:

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.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> 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.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> Any questions?




Common defense comes before general welfare, so according to you it has more importance.  And yet,  you have tried to downplay common defense.

You lose again.

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is more relevant:
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

"*provide *for the common defence, *promote* the general Welfare"

Look up the words "provide" and 'promote".

Common defence >>>>>> general welfare.




I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common defense comes before general welfare, so according to you it has more importance.  And yet,  you have tried to downplay common defense.
> 
> You lose again.
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

You are misapplying their reasoning.  

Our Constitution is express not implied by your right wing fantasy in any way.  

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is more relevant:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "*provide *for the common defence, *promote* the general Welfare"
> 
> Look up the words "provide" and 'promote".
> 
> Common defence >>>>>> general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

In other words, we need to do more for the general welfare than for the common defense.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is more relevant:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "*provide *for the common defence, *promote* the general Welfare"
> 
> Look up the words "provide" and 'promote".
> 
> Common defence >>>>>> general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, we need to do more for the general welfare than for the common defense.
Click to expand...

Already been a $22 TRILLION boondoggle trying to end poverty..........and the poverty rate is basically the same.

Your ideas suck sweaty donkey balls, Troll.


I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is more relevant:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "*provide *for the common defence, *promote* the general Welfare"
> 
> Look up the words "provide" and 'promote".
> 
> Common defence >>>>>> general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, we need to do more for the general welfare than for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already been a $22 TRILLION boondoggle trying to end poverty..........and the poverty rate is basically the same.
> 
> Your ideas suck sweaty donkey balls, Troll.
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

And, our standard of living is getting worse.  We have to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or badfare.  

Solving simple poverty promotes the general welfare in market friendly manner via existing legal and physical infrastructure.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is more relevant:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "*provide *for the common defence, *promote* the general Welfare"
> 
> Look up the words "provide" and 'promote".
> 
> Common defence >>>>>> general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, we need to do more for the general welfare than for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already been a $22 TRILLION boondoggle trying to end poverty..........and the poverty rate is basically the same.
> 
> Your ideas suck sweaty donkey balls, Troll.
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, our standard of living is getting worse.  We have to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or badfare.
> 
> Solving simple poverty promotes the general welfare in market friendly manner via existing legal and physical infrastructure.
Click to expand...


I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty?
> 
> Just more dumbassery by you. How has your beloved Central Gubmint done on solving simple poverty?
> 
> 
> *The War on Poverty After 50 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy or coincidence?  Black codes were still on the books back then.
> 
> All the socialism we need is equality via equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic.
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is more relevant:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "*provide *for the common defence, *promote* the general Welfare"
> 
> Look up the words "provide" and 'promote".
> 
> Common defence >>>>>> general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, we need to do more for the general welfare than for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already been a $22 TRILLION boondoggle trying to end poverty..........and the poverty rate is basically the same.
> 
> Your ideas suck sweaty donkey balls, Troll.
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, our standard of living is getting worse.  We have to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general malfare or badfare.
> 
> Solving simple poverty promotes the general welfare in market friendly manner via existing legal and physical infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

You missapply their reasoning.  I am discussing something actually enumerated in our federal and State Constitutions.  Equal protection of the laws.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Homelessness...was still growing under the best of right wing economic times.


Only in cites run by failed left-wing policies (like San Francisco, LA, and NY).


danielpalos said:


> and equality was still growing under the best of right wing economic times.


Another blatant lie by the China troll. By percentage, the lower class had made the greatest increases under President Trump.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> 
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
Click to expand...

You still didn't answer the question. Were not discussing "due process". That never came up. Why won't you answer the question? Do you lack the modesty to admit you can't?

There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> 
> 
> *Due process* is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
Click to expand...

Let the record show that I asked about murder specifically, and in a panic, the China troll nonsensically turns the conversation to "due process" (which was never discussed or debated in this thread).

The China troll now realizes that he backed himself into a corner and there is no way out of it. So you ask about "A" and he screams "look over there at Z"!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause...
Click to expand...

Uh..yes there. For the *third* *time* now: #638


----------



## P@triot

Nostra said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominems are usually considered fallacies.  You need a valid argument to show where my reasoning is wrong to be taken seriously.  Only the ignorant must appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been shown where your reasoning is wrong, over and over again with documented evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it.  And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.
Click to expand...

Not half as bad as the desperate stuff the China troll just tried with me. After screaming that abortion isn't "expressly" forbidden in the US Constitution, I pointed out that neither is murder and asked him I am allowed to commit murder because of that.

His reply? "Due process exists". Uh...yeah? Ok? And? I didn't ask if I was allowed to commit "due process". I asked if I was allowed to commit murder


----------



## initforme

Well my tax dollars will end up there or in some rich guys wallet.  I'll pick the homeless over ANY rich guy anytime.   And this is coming from a guy who worked for 40 years.  Try that on.  You see, I didn't vote for EITHER candidate.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yet, Y'all are the ones with nothing but fallacy of appeals to ignorance, and your usual ad hominems, instead of any valid arguments.


We're the one's who have provided actual quotes from founders and cited sources like The Federalist Papers. You have yet to quote _anyone_ or provide a _single_ source. All you do is string together words you don't understand in hopes of duping someone. "We expressly have an express clause that is welfare but not bad fare for the express purpose of expressly not badfaring the welfared".


danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is not common but general.


See? Perfect timing! I rest my case!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What does one power authorize but not the other?  Right wingers allege everything can be done for the "common" defense but not the "General" welfare.


“General welfare” is *not* an enumerated power, dumb ass. Defense _is_.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> Well my tax dollars will end up there or in some rich guys wallet.  I'll pick the homeless over ANY rich guy anytime.


If that were even remotely true, you would hand your money to the homeless people themselves. Instead, you vote for government to take someone else’s money and give a small portion of it to them, while waiting the rest.


initforme said:


> And this is coming from a guy who worked for 40 years.  Try that on.  You see, I didn't vote for EITHER candidate.


Are we supposed to be proud of you or something? Try _this_ on: I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homelessness...was still growing under the best of right wing economic times.
> 
> 
> 
> Only in cites run by failed left-wing policies (like San Francisco, LA, and NY).
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> and equality was still growing under the best of right wing economic times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another blatant lie by the China troll. By percentage, the lower class had made the greatest increases under President Trump.
Click to expand...










						12 Ways the Trump Administration Has Deepened Inequality
					

From reducing Native Americans’ land to limiting access to food stamps




					time.com


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> 
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still didn't answer the question. Were not discussing "due process". That never came up. Why won't you answer the question? Do you lack the modesty to admit you can't?
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
Click to expand...

_A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws_

Proof only right wingers prefer ignorance to the actual and express law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> 
> 
> *Due process* is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let the record show that I asked about murder specifically, and in a panic, the China troll nonsensically turns the conversation to "due process" (which was never discussed or debated in this thread).
> 
> The China troll now realizes that he backed himself into a corner and there is no way out of it. So you ask about "A" and he screams "look over there at Z"!
Click to expand...

Let the record also show, right wingers don't care about the law.  Unfortunately for them, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh..yes there. For the *third* *time* now: #638
Click to expand...

No, there isn't.  Our Constitution is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence *and* general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does one power authorize but not the other?  Right wingers allege everything can be done for the "common" defense but not the "General" welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> “General welfare” is *not* an enumerated power, dumb ass. Defense _is_.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about terms that can be found in any dictionary. 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, *to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> 
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still didn't answer the question. Were not discussing "due process". That never came up. Why won't you answer the question? Do you lack the modesty to admit you can't?
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws_
> 
> Proof only right wingers prefer ignorance to the actual and express law.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh..yes there. For the *third* *time* now: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there isn't.  Our Constitution is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence *and* general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> 
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still didn't answer the question. Were not discussing "due process". That never came up. Why won't you answer the question? Do you lack the modesty to admit you can't?
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws_
> 
> Proof only right wingers prefer ignorance to the actual and express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

This is what our Founding Fathers actually expressed in writing:

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

If the common defense is a general power then the general welfare must also be a general power.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see a general *warfare* clause...
> 
> 
> 
> I just corrected you on this yesterday, China troll. Defense (which includes "warfare") is absolutely a power of the federal government. Here, take a look for yourself: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said “general *warfare*”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no general warfare clause...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh..yes there. For the *third* *time* now: #638
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there isn't.  Our Constitution is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence *and* general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
Click to expand...

You merely appeal from and to ignorance.  You have to be more, sincere, than that.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question, China troll. There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> 
> 
> Due process is expressed in our supreme law of the land.  Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still didn't answer the question. Were not discussing "due process". That never came up. Why won't you answer the question? Do you lack the modesty to admit you can't?
> 
> There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws_
> 
> Proof only right wingers prefer ignorance to the actual and express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what our Founding Fathers actually expressed in writing:
> 
> to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
> 
> If the common defense is a general power then the general welfare must also be a general power.
Click to expand...

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

This is actually what is in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land:

*  to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*


You simply appeal to ignorance.

If one is a general power so must the one with the express term.


----------



## Nostra

I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.

For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.

You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> I gave you multiple links to the Founders expressing their reasoning on the general welfare clause, Stupid.
> 
> For some reason you think posting "express" and "badfare"   trumps their reasoning. It doesn't.
> 
> You keep repeating the exact same incoherent nonsense and think you sound smart. You don't. You are exposing what a moron you are with each post.


Means nothing, even the republicans don't really believe that, since the Hoover Administration. Frivolous Hoax is all you have not any fine and wonderful, free market Capitalism solutions, like y'all allege you are for in socialism threads.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> _A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws_


You still didn't answer the question. We were *not* discussing "due process". That never came up. Why won't you answer the question? Do you lack the modesty to admit you can't?

There is no "express clause" for "regulating" murder. *Am I allowed to commit murder*? This is a yes or no answer. Yes or No?

(Hint: _everyone_ knows why you refuse to answer this basic question. It proves you were 100% wrong on your claim that abortion is legal because there is no "express clause outlawing abortion in the US Constitution).


----------



## WTH_Progs?

Southern Ca. just reported they have no ICU space available.  Remind me, who runs California again?

Oh that's right, PROGS are deep thinkers, Trump does because we live in a dictatorship.  Trump lied, people died, stuff like that.


----------



## P@triot

First Tesla...and now the nuclear bomb: Oracle. The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. Businesses (and thus people) cannot flee that shit-hole state fast enough.








						Silicon Valley Exodus: Oracle Moves Headquarters To Texas, Latest To Relocate During COVID-19 Pandemic
					

Longtime Bay Area software giant Oracle announced Friday that it has moved its headquarters to Texas, becoming the latest Silicon Valley firm to relocate during the COVID-19 pandemic.




					sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com


----------



## Oldestyle

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


With all due respect, Timmy...people are leaving Cali in droves and have been for decades now.  The State itself is wonderful but the people that have been running it have destroyed it.  Now people from California are moving to other States and slowly ruining them too.


----------



## Agit8r

Acouts for about 1/7 of US Gross Domestic Product, but hey.


----------



## P@triot

Agit8r said:


> Acouts for about 1/7 of US Gross Domestic Product, but hey.


“Acouts”? Really?

Guess what? The just lost Tesla and they just lost Oracle. Their “Gross Domestic Product” is shrinking by the hour. Facts matter.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol


----------



## Issa

miketx said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
Click to expand...

It is called offer and demand. 
Texas have a horrible weather, bugs and dont offer as much as california (mountains, snow, desert, beaches, Disney, universal, .....). California is the most populous for a reason. We can sell our house and literally buy a mansion in Texas....but for what? To be miserable and a hot humid weather ?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in cali
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs pay more in California because they _have_ to. They can’t get anyone to come there because a pitiful 936 sq ft home costs a staggering $459,000.
> 
> Businesses and people have been pulling out of California for years because it’s a progressive shit-hole.
Click to expand...

And if we beleive you...we should have empty freeways and abandoned houses. Lol 
Dude lay off the hate.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acouts for about 1/7 of US Gross Domestic Product, but hey.
> 
> 
> 
> “Acouts”? Really?
> 
> Guess what? The just lost Tesla and they just lost Oracle. Their “Gross Domestic Product” is shrinking by the hour. Facts matter.
Click to expand...

Tesla is still here Mr informed lol. Tesla is just expanding even in China .
Oracle went and hundreds of startups saw the light just this year.


----------



## miketx

Issa said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called offer and demand.
> Texas have a horrible weather, bugs and dont offer as much as california (mountains, snow, desert, beaches, Disney, universal, .....). California is the most populous for a reason. We can sell our house and literally buy a mansion in Texas....but for what? To be miserable and a hot humid weather ?
Click to expand...

Total bullshit from a proven liar. defending the indefensible.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called offer and demand.
> Texas have a horrible weather, bugs and dont offer as much as california (mountains, snow, desert, beaches, Disney, universal, .....). California is the most populous for a reason. We can sell our house and literally buy a mansion in Texas....but for what? To be miserable and a hot humid weather ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total bullshit from a proven liar. defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...

You can expect blue State type of taxes with so many people moving to Texas.  Vote blue not red!

Check your PID clause!
Blue State type of infrastructure is not free.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Tesla is still here Mr informed lol. Tesla is just expanding even in China . Oracle went and hundreds of startups saw the light just this year.


Hang in there, Mr. Ignorant.








						Elon Musk is leaving Silicon Valley for Texas. These millionaires and companies are joining him | CNN Business
					

Silicon Valley has been the epicenter of the tech industry for decades, starting in 1938 when Bill Hewlett and David Packard started tinkering in a Palo Alto garage.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You can expect blue State type of taxes with so many people moving to Texas.


And with it, you can expect less jobs, lower income, declining education, and more poverty, crime, and misery (just like California, Illinois, NY). Because that’s what the left-wing ideology produces.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol


And ladies and gentlemen, this is the millionth tool that bashes *President Trump* in a ridiculous avatar while being profoundly ignorant of facts, since I've joined these forums. “LOL”.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> California is the most populous for a reason.


Yes...there is a reason. It is run by anti-American assholes who have assisted 20 million illegal aliens of invading the United States by illegally offering “sanctuary” to them. Your elected officials are literally criminals who don’t uphold the law.

Oh, and there is also the whole promiscuity problem you have. You know, Hollywood, South Central Los Angeles, the porn industry, etc. all spreading herpes and having tons of babies out of wedlock.

So yeah, certainly no shortage of reasons. All of them also contribute to California being a third-world shit-hole that Americans are fleeing in record numbers.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> It is called offer and demand.


There is no such thing as “offer and demand”, ya fuck’n high school dropout. It’s called *supply and demand*. 


Issa said:


> Texas have a horrible weather, bugs and dont offer as much as california (mountains, snow, desert, beaches, Disney, universal, .....).


So what does it say that Americans are _literally_ fleeing California (like East Germans when the Berlin Wall came down) for Texas? You literally just defeated your own argument.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Issa said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called offer and demand.
> Texas have a horrible weather, bugs and dont offer as much as california (mountains, snow, desert, beaches, Disney, universal, .....). California is the most populous for a reason. We can sell our house and literally buy a mansion in Texas....but for what? To be miserable and a hot humid weather ?
Click to expand...

There is no more Disney, or Universal or even Knotts Berry Farm.  Disney has sent a plan to Sacramento to open retail keeping the rides and attractions shut down.

If you want to go to Disney or Universal go to Florida.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the most populous for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...there is a reason. It is run by anti-American assholes who have assisted 20 million illegal aliens of invading the United States by illegally offering “sanctuary” to them. Your elected officials are literally criminals who don’t uphold the law.
> 
> Oh, and there is also the whole promiscuity problem you have. You know, Hollywood, South Central Los Angeles, the porn industry, etc. all spreading herpes and having tons of babies out of wedlock.
> 
> So yeah, certainly no shortage of reasons. All of them also contribute to California being a third-world shit-hole that Americans are fleeing in record numbers.
Click to expand...

There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Let the record also show, right wingers don't care about the law.  Unfortunately for them, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


Except that you’re the asshole denying the law while we are upholding it. There is no “express clause” in the US Constitution outlawing murder. Does that mean I have a constitutional right to commit murder?

You’re attempt to redirect the conversation away from this basic question is humiliating for you. It has shown everyone on the board that you can’t be taken seriously. Once you paint yourself into the corner, you lack the humility to continue the conversation.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can expect blue State type of taxes with so many people moving to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> And with it, you can expect less jobs, lower income, declining education, and more poverty, crime, and misery (just like California, Illinois, NY). Because that’s what the left-wing ideology produces.
Click to expand...

We can simply raise the minimum wage to raise exponentially more tax revenue.  First world economies Cost and Labor must be able to profit from it.


----------



## WTH_Progs?

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
Click to expand...


PROG-California provides the material.  I live next door and loved Ca.  Then beginning with Clinton, the internet, China followed by the rest of PROGS ruined it.  Very sad.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We can simply raise the minimum wage to raise exponentially more tax revenue.


So your plan to stop businesses from leaving California in droves due to outrageous taxes and regulations is to increase taxes and regulations? Good plan Danny. Good plan. You're a prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about basic economics.


----------



## P@triot

WTH_Progs? said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> PROG-California provides the material.  I live next door and loved Ca.  Then beginning with Clinton, the internet, China followed by the rest of PROGS ruined it.  Very sad.
Click to expand...

The left-wing ideology ruins _everything_. It ruins economies. It ruins nations. It ruins people.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can simply raise the minimum wage to raise exponentially more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan to stop businesses from leaving California in droves due to outrageous taxes and regulations is to increase taxes and regulations? Good plan Danny. Good plan. You're a prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about basic economics.
> 
> View attachment 430798
Click to expand...

It is simply more efficient to merely pay labor more and to resort to tax schemes less.


----------



## Nostra

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can simply raise the minimum wage to raise exponentially more tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan to stop businesses from leaving California in droves due to outrageous taxes and regulations is to increase taxes and regulations? Good plan Danny. Good plan. You're a prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about basic economics.
> 
> View attachment 430798
Click to expand...

The moron is polluting any thread, no matter what the topic, with his idiotic tripe.


----------



## P@triot

Tipsycatlover said:


> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.


*1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.

*2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.


----------



## P@triot

Nostra said:


> The moron is polluting any thread, no matter what the topic, with his idiotic tripe.


Yep. He's an asshole troll. Not willing to engage in an honest discussion. I'm pretty sure he's Chinese too as his sentences just don't make any sense. He clings to buzz words that just don't fit where he uses them.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol


Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.








						California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
					

More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
> 
> 
> More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...

I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.


----------



## Nostra

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
> 
> 
> More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.
Click to expand...

Yep, some people are dumb enough to stick around and get assraped by the Dimwinger politicians in Kalifornia...............enough thinking people are fleeing to cost Kalifornia a House seat and an EC vote.









						Nolte: Fleeing Californians Could Cost State House Seat, Electoral Vote
					

The failed state of California is bleeding enough population to lose a House seat and an electoral vote.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## HenryBHough

Tax Man said:


> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.


You should be very pleased with your guardian for figuring out that California offers the absolutely the BEST free care for Alzheimer's patients!   Please try to remember that.


----------



## danielpalos

Nostra said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
> 
> 
> More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, some people are dumb enough to stick around and get assraped by the Dimwinger politicians in Kalifornia...............enough thinking people are fleeing to cost Kalifornia a House seat and an EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nolte: Fleeing Californians Could Cost State House Seat, Electoral Vote
> 
> 
> The failed state of California is bleeding enough population to lose a House seat and an electoral vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
Click to expand...

We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
> 
> 
> More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, some people are dumb enough to stick around and get assraped by the Dimwinger politicians in Kalifornia...............enough thinking people are fleeing to cost Kalifornia a House seat and an EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nolte: Fleeing Californians Could Cost State House Seat, Electoral Vote
> 
> 
> The failed state of California is bleeding enough population to lose a House seat and an electoral vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.
Click to expand...

Just more of your dumbassery that has no relevance to my post.

This troll needs to go.


----------



## Tax Man

danielpalos said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
> 
> 
> More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, some people are dumb enough to stick around and get assraped by the Dimwinger politicians in Kalifornia...............enough thinking people are fleeing to cost Kalifornia a House seat and an EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nolte: Fleeing Californians Could Cost State House Seat, Electoral Vote
> 
> 
> The failed state of California is bleeding enough population to lose a House seat and an electoral vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.
Click to expand...

I believe that fairly soon a pledge to do just that will be forthcoming from the white house.


----------



## Tax Man

HenryBHough said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> You should be very pleased with your guardian for figuring out that California offers the absolutely the BEST free care for Alzheimer's patients!   Please try to remember that.
Click to expand...

You might want to check it out for yourself ya loon.


----------



## Thinker101

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
> 
> 
> More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.
Click to expand...


Yep, between California property taxes, state income taxes and businesses closing, what's not to love....dumbass.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the most populous for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...there is a reason. It is run by anti-American assholes who have assisted 20 million illegal aliens of invading the United States by illegally offering “sanctuary” to them. Your elected officials are literally criminals who don’t uphold the law.
> 
> Oh, and there is also the whole promiscuity problem you have. You know, Hollywood, South Central Los Angeles, the porn industry, etc. all spreading herpes and having tons of babies out of wedlock.
> 
> So yeah, certainly no shortage of reasons. All of them also contribute to California being a third-world shit-hole that Americans are fleeing in record numbers.
Click to expand...

You concerned about porn and herpes coming out of california and you voted for an adulterer who cheats on his wife with porn stars? Can you explain this one ?


----------



## Issa

Tipsycatlover said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called offer and demand.
> Texas have a horrible weather, bugs and dont offer as much as california (mountains, snow, desert, beaches, Disney, universal, .....). California is the most populous for a reason. We can sell our house and literally buy a mansion in Texas....but for what? To be miserable and a hot humid weather ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no more Disney, or Universal or even Knotts Berry Farm.  Disney has sent a plan to Sacramento to open retail keeping the rides and attractions shut down.
> 
> If you want to go to Disney or Universal go to Florida.
Click to expand...

Florida is for the crazy no thank you. 
Disney, universal and knott's will open sooner or later...priorities my friend.


----------



## Issa

Nostra said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen this is the millionth thread that bashes California since I've joined these forums lol
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I just cannot imagine why there are so many threads on California. What a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s growth rate at record low as more people leave
> 
> 
> More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here. Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, some people are dumb enough to stick around and get assraped by the Dimwinger politicians in Kalifornia...............enough thinking people are fleeing to cost Kalifornia a House seat and an EC vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nolte: Fleeing Californians Could Cost State House Seat, Electoral Vote
> 
> 
> The failed state of California is bleeding enough population to lose a House seat and an electoral vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
Click to expand...

I've heard this story many times. Dont forget Californians just flipped Arizona and will do the same to Texas, stay tuned.


----------



## Nostra

Shithole state has its own human poop maps to help the morons who live there navigate the sidewalks.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> You concerned about porn and herpes coming out of california and you voted for an adulterer who cheats on his wife with porn stars? Can you explain this one ?


I can! I have *never* cast a _single_ vote for Donald Trump. Not one.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.


But you can’t because you’ve run up *$800 billion* in ignorant left-wing debt.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> I live in California and have no plans to leave. 71 years I've been here and am so happy that losers like you do not live here.


Yeah...marxists always spread propaganda. Tell us all again how it’s such a “paradise” despite the fact that they can’t even keep the electricity on. 


Tax Man said:


> Maybe these people who post about California are just jealous as hell they don't have the smarts or ability to work to live here.


As Elon Musk, Oracle, etc. *leave*


----------



## BS Filter

Nothing is ever improved for everyone through leftist policies.  If Americans are left alone as much possible, everything improves and because everything improves, more people at the lower economic end will improve their lives.


----------



## Mac-7

miketx said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?
> 
> 
> 
> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052
Click to expand...

Liberals brainwashed with the We’re-All-Gonna-Die-From-Global-Warming hoax would argue that no citizen deserves more than a tiny house in california with a smaller carbon footprint


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can’t because you’ve run up *$800 billion* in ignorant left-wing debt.
Click to expand...

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. 



			https://www.usdebtclock.org/
		


And, right wingers still want, Tax Cut economics.  How fantastical of them and their policies.


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can’t because you’ve run up *$800 billion* in ignorant left-wing debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usdebtclock.org/
> 
> 
> 
> And, right wingers still want, Tax Cut economics.  How fantastical of them and their policies.
Click to expand...


And you want bailouts, go figure....dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can’t because you’ve run up *$800 billion* in ignorant left-wing debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usdebtclock.org/
> 
> 
> 
> And, right wingers still want, Tax Cut economics.  How fantastical of them and their policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you want bailouts, go figure....dumbass.
Click to expand...

lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  A multiplier effect must be as complicated as imaginary numbers for the right wing.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can’t because you’ve run up *$800 billion* in ignorant left-wing debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usdebtclock.org/
Click to expand...

That’s the United State’s debt clock, you high school dropout. We were specifically talking about California. 

This is why nobody takes you seriously about anything. You can’t read. You can’t write. And you can’t follow the discussion.


----------



## HenryBHough

P@triot said:


> I can! I have *never* cast a _single_ vote for Donald Trump. Not one.




You must live in a state where there is honest voter registration and illegal aliens can't vote.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A multiplier effect must be as complicated as imaginary numbers for the right wing.


Only failed economic systems (like socialism) need a “multiplier affect”. Capitalism works so well, it doesn’t need government to steal from half the people to “multiply” for the other half (of parasites such as yourself).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to upgrade our energy infrastructure for better, "all electric" performance.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can’t because you’ve run up *$800 billion* in ignorant left-wing debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usdebtclock.org/
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the United State’s debt clock, you high school dropout. We were specifically talking about California.
> 
> This is why nobody takes you seriously about anything. You can’t read. You can’t write. And you can’t follow the discussion.
Click to expand...

California does not operate in a vacuum of special pleading for the left, as it does for the right. It is Why nobody should take the Right Wing seriously about any Thing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Only failed economic systems (like socialism) need a “multiplier affect”.


Only if you appeal to ignorance.   Otherwise, public sector spending is socialism to the extent Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> California does not operate in a vacuum of special pleading for the left...


*A.* Yes it does

*B.* Don't try to weasel your way out of this now. You can't read. You can't write. And you can't follow the conversation. You're a low IQ voter.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Otherwise, public sector spending is socialism to the extent Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.


No, my low IQ friend. Public sector spending becomes socialism based on what they are spending money on (it's not socialism if they are spending on defense, it is socialism if they are providing healthcare).

Could you possibly be any dumber? I'm being serious. I feel like your IQ is almost negative because you say some _really_ stupid shit.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Public sector spending becomes socialism based on what they are spending money on (it's not socialism if they are spending on defense, it is socialism if they are providing healthcare).


Special pleading is why I don't believe you. Why is defense spending not socialism according to you but welfare spending is socialism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Special pleading is why I don't believe you. Why is defense spending not socialism according to you but welfare spending is socialism.


*1.* Because defense is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government while welfare is not.

*2.* And more importantly - defense is a _service_. I’m receiving something in exchange for my money (defense). Welfare is not. I receive nothing. The person receiving welfare is not performing a service for me in exchange for that money. It is merely transferring wealth from one person to another.

These are basic definitions. You should not need them explained to you.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special pleading is why I don't believe you. Why is defense spending not socialism according to you but welfare spending is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Because defense is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government while welfare is not.
> 
> *2.* And more importantly - defense is a _service_. I’m receiving something in exchange for my money (defense). Welfare is not. I receive nothing. The person receiving welfare is not performing a service for me in exchange for that money. It is merely transferring wealth from one person to another.
> 
> These are basic definitions. You should not need them explained to you.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong.  Our Welfare clause is General not common or limited by your view of service.  Besides, simply circulating capital is all that needs to happen with our general welfare clause, like a rising tide lifting all boats as that form of service to our economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Besides, simply circulating capital is all that needs to happen with our general welfare clause, like a rising tide lifting all boats as that form of *service to our economy*.


You routinely attempt to force words where they don’t belong because you’re on the wrong side of the facts and you know it. 

An economy is not a person. It’s an inanimate object. Therefore, nobody can provide a service for the economy.

Second, if you understood even basic economics, you would understand that taking my money and giving it to your lazy and worthless ass, does not make my “boat” lift at all. Not even a little. It sinks my boat as I become the backside of the “rising tide”, where the water evacuated.

Just stop with your nonsense already. Everyone would respect you a lot more if you simply admitted you were a lazy, worthless parasite looking to mooch off of society.


----------



## P@triot

Bwahahaha...the shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. People (and their businesses) continue to flee that failed state in droves. It is starting to resemble Venezuela.








						Kat Von D leaves California over ‘tyrannical government overreach’
					

Kat Von D is relocating to Indiana




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Besides, simply circulating capital is all that needs to happen with our general welfare clause, like a rising tide lifting all boats as that form of service to our economy.


By the way, pure capitalism is the rising tide that lifts all boats. Socialism is the drought that leaves every boat stranded and useless.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> By the way, pure capitalism is the rising tide that lifts all boats.


Where does pure Capitalism actually exist since the fall of Mogadishu?  Merely having Government means regulated and controlled Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> An economy is not a person. It’s an inanimate object. Therefore, nobody can provide a service for the economy.


It is right wingers who proclaim our general welfare clause is not about individuals.  Did you forget your propaganda and rhetoric?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, pure capitalism is the rising tide that lifts all boats.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does pure Capitalism actually exist since the fall of Mogadishu?  Merely having Government means regulated and controlled Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Capitalism *isn't* the absence of government, you high school dropout


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An economy is not a person. It’s an inanimate object. Therefore, nobody can provide a service for the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> It is right wingers who proclaim our general welfare clause is not about individuals.
Click to expand...

No China troll...right-wingers inform you that the "general welfare" clause is not a power. It defines the responsibility of the federal government within their 18 enumerated powers.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An economy is not a person. It’s an inanimate object. Therefore, nobody can provide a service for the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> It is right wingers who proclaim our general welfare clause is not about individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No China troll...right-wingers inform you that the "general welfare" clause is not a power. It defines the responsibility of the federal government within their 18 enumerated powers.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken.  Our welfare clause is general and must cover any given contingency in a general, top down manner and fashion.  It is a general power to raise monies for the general welfare not the general warfare.  And, nobody takes your right wing interpretation of our Constitution seriously since Hoover backtracked on the Republican doctrine.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

P@triot said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
Click to expand...

The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
Click to expand...

I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
Click to expand...

Well.....  It is all you have.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.....  It is all you have.
Click to expand...

Love and gratitude; is that moral?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.....  It is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love and gratitude; is that moral?
Click to expand...

Porn is non existent i Hollywood.  It was never much in South Central.   It struggled in San Bernardino for a moment.  Now it's mostly in Nevada.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.....  It is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love and gratitude; is that moral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Porn is non existent i Hollywood.  It was never much in South Central.   It struggled in San Bernardino for a moment.  Now it's mostly in Nevada.
Click to expand...

I did not know that.  Homemade, amateur wife, is the category I have been watching lately.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.....  It is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love and gratitude; is that moral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Porn is non existent i Hollywood.  It was never much in South Central.   It struggled in San Bernardino for a moment.  Now it's mostly in Nevada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know that.  Homemade, amateur wife, is the category I have been watching lately.
Click to expand...

I had a HUGE client base in porn, movies and internet.   When California passed a raft of regulations my client base was gone overnight.  Literally in less than 24 hours.   Vivid kept executive offices in Rancho Cucamonga.  No porn is made there.  It's all in Nevada.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.....  It is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love and gratitude; is that moral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Porn is non existent i Hollywood.  It was never much in South Central.   It struggled in San Bernardino for a moment.  Now it's mostly in Nevada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know that.  Homemade, amateur wife, is the category I have been watching lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a HUGE client base in porn, movies and internet.   When California passed a raft of regulations my client base was gone overnight.  Literally in less than 24 hours.   Vivid kept executive offices in Rancho Cucamonga.  No porn is made there.  It's all in Nevada.
Click to expand...

Even the homemade stuff?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.....  It is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love and gratitude; is that moral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Porn is non existent i Hollywood.  It was never much in South Central.   It struggled in San Bernardino for a moment.  Now it's mostly in Nevada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know that.  Homemade, amateur wife, is the category I have been watching lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a HUGE client base in porn, movies and internet.   When California passed a raft of regulations my client base was gone overnight.  Literally in less than 24 hours.   Vivid kept executive offices in Rancho Cucamonga.  No porn is made there.  It's all in Nevada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the homemade stuff?
Click to expand...

If it's sold or distributed.    California law demands a permit for each separate act plus an inspector on site to fill out the form attesting to condom use.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more porn industry in Los Angeles.  It was regulated and permitted out of existence.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Nobody said it was in Los Angeles. You read what you wanted to see rather than what I wrote.
> 
> *2.* The point (I mentioned Hollywood, South Central, and the porn industry) is that it is in California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The porn industry was legalized then regulated out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can still love and be grateful for modern broadband times due to the porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.....  It is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love and gratitude; is that moral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Porn is non existent i Hollywood.  It was never much in South Central.   It struggled in San Bernardino for a moment.  Now it's mostly in Nevada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know that.  Homemade, amateur wife, is the category I have been watching lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a HUGE client base in porn, movies and internet.   When California passed a raft of regulations my client base was gone overnight.  Literally in less than 24 hours.   Vivid kept executive offices in Rancho Cucamonga.  No porn is made there.  It's all in Nevada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the homemade stuff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's sold or distributed.    California law demands a permit for each separate act plus an inspector on site to fill out the form attesting to condom use.
Click to expand...

I usually only watch the free stuff for now.  My only criticism is that I have to wade through a lot of smut to get to decent porn.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is general and must cover *any given contingency* in a general, *top down* manner and fashion.


So if *President Trump* deems it in the “general welfare” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power?

You’re really bad at this game, China troll. Really bad.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I usually only watch the free stuff for now.


Daniel Palos is such a socialist parasitic mooch, he won’t even pay exploited girls for the acts he uses to get himself off (because he can’t get a girl). Unfuckingbelievable.


danielpalos said:


> My only criticism is that I have to wade through a lot of smut to get to decent porn.


For someone who claims to be about workers, you’re sure exploiting the workers of the sex industry by *not* paying them. Fucking disgusting moocher.


----------



## P@triot

Tipsycatlover said:


> The porn industry was legalized *then regulated out of business*.


That’s what happens when one embraces the *failed* left-wing ideology like California does. They regulate _everything_ out of business and create Venezuela.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Homemade, amateur wife, is the category I have been watching lately.


Nobody cares, you sick fuck. Stop sharing your disgusting habits in this forum.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover *any given contingency* in a general, *top down* manner and fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> So if *President Trump* deems it in the “general welfare” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power?
> 
> You’re really bad at this game, China troll. Really bad.
Click to expand...

Only the ignorant right wing claims that.  The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.  Only immoral right wingers, like yourself, don't or can't understand the difference.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually only watch the free stuff for now.
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Palos is such a socialist parasitic mooch, he won’t even pay exploited girls for the acts he uses to get himself off (because he can’t get a girl). Unfuckingbelievable.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only criticism is that I have to wade through a lot of smut to get to decent porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who claims to be about workers, you’re sure exploiting the workers of the sex industry by *not* paying them. Fucking disgusting moocher.
Click to expand...

lol.  I am "surviving on free samples". 

And, I practice ethics by not judging women by the clothes they may not be wearing on the Internet and trying to port it to real life whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.  How, un-right wing of me.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover *any given contingency* in a general, *top down* manner and fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> So if *President Trump* deems it in the “general welfare” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power?
> 
> You’re really bad at this game, China troll. Really bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the ignorant right wing claims that.  The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.  Only immoral right wingers, like yourself, don't or can't understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha!! Daniel just *admitted* he was wrong about the "General Welfare" clause!!!


----------



## Nostra

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover *any given contingency* in a general, *top down* manner and fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> So if *President Trump* deems it in the “general welfare” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power?
> 
> You’re really bad at this game, China troll. Really bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the ignorant right wing claims that.  The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.  Only immoral right wingers, like yourself, don't or can't understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Cut and paste "general badfare" from the Constitution, Dummy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> And, I practice ethics by not judging women by the clothes they may not be wearing on the Internet and trying to port it to real life whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.  How, un-right wing of me.


"Ethics" doesn't put a roof over those girl's heads or food on their table. Like all "socialists", you're a selfish piece of shit who wants everything for himself and won't practice what you preach.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.


Right. And if *President Trump* deems it in the “general *welfare*” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power? _Right_?

See Daniel, your lies just don't hold up. If the "General Welfare" clause was a power, the federal government would have unlimited power. They could claim murdering citizens was in the "general welfare" of the United States. They could say eliminating your first amendment rights was in the "general welfare" of the United States.

Danny, not only do you lose, you know you've lost. So just stop the trolling already. You've already admitted to being hooked on internet porn because you can't get women. Just do more porn surfing and less trolling to entertain yourself.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.


So who is empowered (per the US Constitution) to decide what constitutes the "general _welfare_"? Who? President Trump?

Porn-addicted Danny...you've been thoroughly defeated and you know it. Since you insist on trolling, you're going on ignore now. Enjoy screaming to yourself as most people here on USMB already have you on ignore.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover *any given contingency* in a general, *top down* manner and fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> So if *President Trump* deems it in the “general welfare” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power?
> 
> You’re really bad at this game, China troll. Really bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the ignorant right wing claims that.  The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.  Only immoral right wingers, like yourself, don't or can't understand the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hahahaha!! Daniel just *admitted* he was wrong about the "General Welfare" clause!!!
Click to expand...

Most people are wrong about the general welfare clause.  I stopped trying to correct them long ago.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover *any given contingency* in a general, *top down* manner and fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> So if *President Trump* deems it in the “general welfare” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power?
> 
> You’re really bad at this game, China troll. Really bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the ignorant right wing claims that.  The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.  Only immoral right wingers, like yourself, don't or can't understand the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hahahaha!! Daniel just *admitted* he was wrong about the "General Welfare" clause!!!
Click to expand...

I need to proof read better. 

is not.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I practice ethics by not judging women by the clothes they may not be wearing on the Internet and trying to port it to real life whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.  How, un-right wing of me.
> 
> 
> 
> "Ethics" doesn't put a roof over those girl's heads or food on their table. Like all "socialists", you're a selfish piece of shit who wants everything for himself and won't practice what you preach.
Click to expand...

I am advocating equal protection of the laws so they have more rational choice and Individual Liberty not "wage slavery" as the Right Wing prefers.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> ight. And if *President Trump* deems it in the “general *welfare*” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power? _Right_?


The general welfare clause is just as much of a power as the common defense clause.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.
> 
> 
> 
> So who is empowered (per the US Constitution) to decide what constitutes the "general _welfare_"? Who? President Trump?
> 
> Porn-addicted Danny...you've been thoroughly defeated and you know it. Since you insist on trolling, you're going on ignore now. Enjoy screaming to yourself as most people here on USMB already have you on ignore.
Click to expand...

Congress is supposed to know better.  Hoover reached an epiphany over our welfare clause General not Common or Limited.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general and must cover *any given contingency* in a general, *top down* manner and fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> So if *President Trump* deems it in the “general welfare” of the people for him to remain President of the United States, it would be constitutional for him to reject the results of the election and remain in power?
> 
> You’re really bad at this game, China troll. Really bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the ignorant right wing claims that.  The general welfare is distinct from the general badfare.  Only immoral right wingers, like yourself, don't or can't understand the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hahahaha!! Daniel just *admitted* he was wrong about the "General Welfare" clause!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people are wrong about the general welfare clause.  I stopped trying to correct them long ago.
Click to expand...

Most right wingers are wrong about both the general welfare clause and the common defense clause.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha...the shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. People (and their businesses) continue to flee that failed state in droves. It is starting to resemble Venezuela.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat Von D leaves California over ‘tyrannical government overreach’
> 
> 
> Kat Von D is relocating to Indiana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com



Is that the skank that Jesse James cheated on Sandra Bullock with?


----------



## P@triot

Tipsycatlover said:


> Most people are wrong about the general welfare clause.  I stopped trying to correct them long ago.


The truth is...they know they are wrong but they are trying to justify their desire for handouts.


----------



## P@triot

DigitalDrifter said:


> Is that the skank that Jesse James cheated on Sandra Bullock with?


No idea. I’m the wrong guy to ask about Hollywood gossip. I can speak much more intelligently about the founders and the constitution.


----------



## P@triot

California is a complete and total dumpster fire thanks to the ignorant left-wing ideology...








						The Sovietization of California
					

How long will the Soviet states of America and the free states of America remain the United States of America?




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are wrong about the general welfare clause.  I stopped trying to correct them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is...they know they are wrong but they are trying to justify their desire for handouts.
Click to expand...

lol.  Like anyone is going to take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.  How many suits need to be dismissed by the judiciary to prove that point.


----------



## P@triot

California continues to place _everything_ (criminals, foreigners, wildlife) over US citizens. Unquestionably the worst state in the US.

Hilarious that they have the audacity to place tracking collars on these animals and then call them “*wild*” life.








						An endangered wolf was shot to death in California. Then the armed agents showed up — The Sacramento Bee
					

Agents from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife searched a house in Modoc County believing they’d caught a poacher who’d killed an endangered wolf.




					apple.news


----------



## P@triot

This is the society that the left-wing ideology builds. Once again, the shit-hole state of California strikes...









						Two teens will not receive jail sentences after attack kills 13 year old boy
					

Young boy died after being punched in 2019




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

They got away with murder at 13, I'm sure that will teach them to never murder anyone else....


----------



## HenryBHough

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



Nice list of the best of California.

Now tell us about the downside as their governor/governess/governorwhatthefuk might see it.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_...








						The 'most TERRIFYING story I have EVER had to report': Glenn Beck reveals newly approved CA school curriculum
					

'Gang, we are in biblical-sized trouble'




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. Fuck’n state now resembles Mogadishu, just with a lot more fecal matter in the streets.








						California Makes 76,000 Inmates, Including Violent And Repeat Felons, Eligible For Early Release In Push To Reduce Prison Population | The Daily Wire
					






					www.dailywire.com


----------



## P@triot

Show me any city, county, or state run by Dumbocrats and I’ll show you a third-world shit-hole _every_ time.








						Drug Overdoses Killed 2x More People in San Francisco than COVID-19
					

Drug overdoses killed more than 700 people in San Francisco in 2020, while COVID killed fewer than 300, and 2021 looks even worse.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## P@triot

Let’s see…a violent crime and nobody stops to help the victim afterward? Must be a left-wing city, county, or state run by Dumbocrats.

Oh! Would you look at that! Oakland, California. I didn’t even have to look. 








						Asian man, 71, loses seven teeth in brutal daylight attack during which he was bitten, robbed, and dragged from car down street
					

A 71-year-old Asian and Latino man told KGO-TV he was grabbing a trash can from the curb in Oakland, California, last Wednesday when he noticed a car near the driveway.  	So he asked the car's driver to move, the station said — and things got ugly. What are the details? 	The man — who didn't...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

Show me any city, county, state, or nation run by the left and I'll show you a miserable, shit-hole, dumpster-fire _every_ time...








						Los Angeles Homelessness Worsens After California Spends Billions | Soledad Ursua
					

Venice Beach homelessness and crime are skyrocketing and could be reaching a breaking point. My returning guest is ...




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## sartre play

Have to say it again, In America you are free to move any where you want. Don't like Calif don't move there. Live where ever makes you happy. Just stop the Hate.


----------



## P@triot

sartre play said:


> Have to say it again, In America you are free to move any where you want. Don't like Calif don't move there. Live where ever makes you happy. Just stop the Hate.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: every time a leftist is defeated with facts, they scream false accusations of "hate".

It's not "hate" to speak the *truth*
The *failed* left-wing ideology that embraces fascism and unconstitutional directives is used by Dumbocrats at the federal level to destroy my country
Sorry, I'll never stop fighting against the totalitarian fascist ideology of the Dumbocrats. Never. I'll point out it's profound failures every single second of every single day, without exception. I'll never tire, and I'll never stop. #DealWithIt


----------



## sartre play

Well something is wrong, go back some years it look for pictures of the homeless, was in KC MO a few months ago & was amazed at the amount of homeless people. The bigger the city, the more homeless there are. So go rural? then watch housing cost go's up & then the displacement starts. we need to be asking What is the cause of so many homeless people.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to say it again, In America you are free to move any where you want. Don't like Calif don't move there. Live where ever makes you happy. Just stop the Hate.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: every time a leftist is defeated with facts, they scream false accusations of "hate".
> 
> It's not "hate" to speak the *truth*
> The *failed* left-wing ideology that embraces fascism and unconstitutional directives is used by Dumbocrats at the federal level to destroy my country
> Sorry, I'll never stop fighting against the totalitarian fascist ideology of the Dumbocrats. Never. I'll point out it's profound failures every single second of every single day, without exception. I'll never tire, and I'll never stop. #DealWithIt
Click to expand...

It sure is dumb on your part though to keep on expressing ignorance.


----------



## sartre play

Personal insults instead of reasoned response's?


----------



## danielpalos

I have a Happy camper policy, chics.  Insist on it.


----------



## P@triot

The *failed* left-wing ideology continues to destroy every city and state that it infects.








						Taxpayers Fleeing California Take $8.8 Billion in Gross Income to Other States
					

California, with its relatively large tax burden compared to other states, has seen a taxpayer exodus in recent years and, along with it, billions in taxable gross income.




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> The *failed* left-wing ideology continues to destroy every city and state that it infects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayers Fleeing California Take $8.8 Billion in Gross Income to Other States
> 
> 
> California, with its relatively large tax burden compared to other states, has seen a taxpayer exodus in recent years and, along with it, billions in taxable gross income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theepochtimes.com


It is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave, materialism is what makes me a better person. We have had people  leaving California for years we just had so many comming in for work it offest the numbers.


----------



## danielpalos

They end up voting blue anyway, eventually.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> It is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave, materialism is what makes me a better person. We have had people  leaving California for years we just had so many comming in for work it offest the numbers.


I know you’re a heavy drinker, but that is more incoherent and fucked up than usual. Are you sauced more than normal right now or did you suffer a stroke?

Is there someone we can call for you?


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> It is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave,


Exactly. Conservative ideals/ideas make life better for everyone. And that causes people to leave the failed left-wing ideology


Tax Man said:


> materialism is what makes me a better person.


What a weird fuck’n thing to say. But no son, it doesn’t make you a “better person”. At all.


Tax Man said:


> We have had people  leaving California for years


Yep, because it’s a cesspool of left-wing misery


Tax Man said:


> we just had so many comming in for work it offest the numbers.


Then why has your tax revenue plummeted $8 billion? Nobody has come in to “work”. You’ve just had illegals come in to mooch.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in poverty and misery like the left-wing ideology…








						San Francisco Shows Leftist Policies Can't Solve Homelessness
					

San Francisco spends over $255 million per year on mental health and substance abuse programs, many of which cater to the city’s homeless.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Colin norris

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



Would the same state be an embarrassment if republicans controlled it? Of course not. Just another swipe at the dems. Your pathetic.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave, materialism is what makes me a better person. We have had people  leaving California for years we just had so many comming in for work it offest the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you’re a heavy drinker, but that is more incoherent and fucked up than usual. Are you sauced more than normal right now or did you suffer a stroke?
> 
> Is there someone we can call for you?
Click to expand...

It is nice to know I make you fearful; so much so you accuse me of being what you are. 
I do not use alcoholic beverages.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> I do not use alcoholic beverages.


So you’re just _that_ profoundly illiterate? Ummm…ok


----------



## P@triot

California is just an embarrassing third-world Banana Republic…








						Elderly performer dances by the beach when thug sneaks up from behind and punches him in face, shattering his cheekbone
					

Video caught the moment when an elderly performer was dancing on the Boardwalk at Venice Beach, California, over the weekend — and another man approached him from behind and punched him in the face.  	As the victim danced to Earth, Wind & Fire's "Boogie Wonderland," a shirtless man was seen...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

California is just an embarrassing third-world Banana Republic. Remember folks, this is Joe Biden’s America:








						VIDEO: Suspect carries out gruesome beating on woman pumping gas — and bystanders do nothing to help
					

Officers are investigating after a suspect approached a woman at a gas station and inflicted upon her a gruesome beating, according to KTTV-TV. Authorities say that a person who is believed to be the suspect was taken into custody as of Friday night. No other information about the suspect has...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not use alcoholic beverages.
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re just _that_ profoundly illiterate? Ummm…ok
Click to expand...

I see you do not understand english. The sentence, It is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave, materialism is what makes me a better person., puts you at odds with your basic beliefs.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in poverty and misery like the left-wing ideology…








						Shoplifting Is Plaguing Residents, Stores in San Francisco
					

Representatives from Walgreens say that it closed 17 stores in the area due to increased shoplifting.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> I see you do not understand english. The sentence*, I*t is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave, materialism is what makes me a better person*.,* puts you at odds with your basic beliefs.


See what I mean? Damn you are one illiterate S.o.B. Please allow me to illustrate how someone with an IQ above 12 would type your post:


> The sentence, “It is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave -  materialism is what makes me a better person”, puts you at odds with your basic beliefs.


Don’t blame me for “not understanding English” when your dumb ass fails to create even the most basic sentence properly.


----------



## P@triot

The left-wing ideology is such a failed ideology that it can’t even keep electricity flowing in the 21st Century 








						Blackouts Loom in California as Electricity Prices Explode
					

The California Independent System Operator has asked consumers to reduce power use “to reduce stress on the grid and avoid power outages.”




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you do not understand english. The sentence*, I*t is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave, materialism is what makes me a better person*.,* puts you at odds with your basic beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? Damn you are one illiterate S.o.B. Please allow me to illustrate how someone with an IQ above 12 would type your post:
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence, “It is an overly used conservative ideal that makes people leave -  materialism is what makes me a better person”, puts you at odds with your basic beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t blame me for “not understanding English” when your dumb ass fails to create even the most basic sentence properly.
Click to expand...

I simply tried to keep the language simple so your feeble mind could grasp the idea. Your rewrite did not change a thing.


----------



## BS Filter

You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.


----------



## Tax Man

BS Filter said:


> You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.


Who is trying to go socialist?


----------



## percysunshine

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



The weirdness will never evaporate.









						With Its Power Grid Under Pressure, California Asks Residents to Avoid Charging Electric Vehicles
					

Amid a West Coast heat wave that includes triple-digit temperatures, California's power grid operators have called on residents ...




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## BS Filter

Tax Man said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is trying to go socialist?
Click to expand...

This is the part where you play dumb, huh.


----------



## Tax Man

BS Filter said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is trying to go socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the part where you play dumb, huh.
Click to expand...

NO! It is where I try to find out why you think the left is want socialism.


----------



## BS Filter

Tax Man said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is trying to go socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the part where you play dumb, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO! It is where I try to find out why you think the left is want socialism.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm informed and blessed with intelligence.  Duh!


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> I simply tried to keep the language simple so your feeble mind could grasp the idea. Your rewrite did not change a thing.


What does your illiterate failure to use proper punctuation have to do with “simple language”? Nice try.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is trying to go socialist?
Click to expand...

The entire Dumbocrat Party.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply tried to keep the language simple so your feeble mind could grasp the idea. Your rewrite did not change a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> What does your illiterate failure to use proper punctuation have to do with “simple language”? Nice try.
Click to expand...

Punctuation seems to make repards get con fused so I simply put the words up and hope you can decipher what they mean.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is trying to go socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire Dumbocrat Party.
Click to expand...

So now you are telling me what I am doing and thinking?


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Punctuation seems to make repards get *con* *fused* so I simply put the words up and hope you can decipher what they mean.


Like all on the left, you’re uneducated and illiterate. Own that shit. You just proved it again with “con fused”


----------



## P@triot

Sorry San Jose, all of us gun owners “*identify*” as disarmed and unarmed 








						San Jose announces plan to charge law-abiding gun owners for costs of criminal gun violence
					

In an unprecedented move that is sure to be challenged in court by gun-rights advocates, city leaders in San Jose voted Tuesday to require gun owners in the city to pay taxpayers for the public costs incurred by criminal gun violence.  	In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the progressive San Jose...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuation seems to make repards get *con* *fused* so I simply put the words up and hope you can decipher what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Like all on the left, you’re uneducated and illiterate. Own that shit. You just proved it again with “con fused”
Click to expand...

You are too stupid to even understand a simple split word, derogatory of you.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Sorry San Jose, all of us gun owners “*identify*” as disarmed and unarmed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Jose announces plan to charge law-abiding gun owners for costs of criminal gun violence
> 
> 
> In an unprecedented move that is sure to be challenged in court by gun-rights advocates, city leaders in San Jose voted Tuesday to require gun owners in the city to pay taxpayers for the public costs incurred by criminal gun violence.  	In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the progressive San Jose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com


Your registration gives you away. Besides who in their correct mind would sell you a firearm?


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Your registration gives you away. Besides who in their correct mind would sell you a firearm?


Your vagina gives _you_ away. But you still insist that you identify as a “man”.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Your registration gives you away.


Psst…my guns are *not* registered  (I’m not that stupid)


----------



## BS Filter

Tax Man said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftist trash must really live pathetic lives if you think socialism is something to strive for.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is trying to go socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire Dumbocrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you are telling me what I am doing and thinking?
Click to expand...

You're better off trying that playing dumb act with some naive college kids.  The informed citizens here know that the Democrat party is full of socialists.  A couple Democrats have the courage to admit it, the rest of ya'll play dumb.


----------



## BS Filter

P@triot said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your registration gives you away.
> 
> 
> 
> Psst…my guns are *not* registered  (I’m not that stupid)
Click to expand...

Correct.  Only a fool would register their guns.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_. When left-wing policy fails (as it does 100% of the time), the left screams “racist”.








						San Francisco's Leaders Out of Touch as City Descends Into Lawlessness
					

Amid rising crime and general absurdities, San Francisco residents seem to be catching on to how bad things have become.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

When will the left learn that the sick fuck’n sexual deviance they engage in, in the gross and failed state of California, doesn’t fly in the rest of the country?








						South Carolina father helps police arrest man accused of looking at teen in bathroom, reports say
					

A group of fathers are being credited with helping police arrest a registered sex offender after he allegedly was caught looking a 15-year-old girl inside a woman’s restroom at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in South Carolina, reports say.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> When will the left learn that the sick fuck’n sexual deviance they engage in, in the gross and failed state of California, doesn’t fly in the rest of the country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina father helps police arrest man accused of looking at teen in bathroom, reports say
> 
> 
> A group of fathers are being credited with helping police arrest a registered sex offender after he allegedly was caught looking a 15-year-old girl inside a woman’s restroom at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in South Carolina, reports say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com


Conservative boys are the sexual deviants.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


 Pick any two states you don’t need an app to dodge the human shit on the streets.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Seawytch said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO! That’s the response of a second grader. It’s a shit-hole state and _everyone_ knows it. People and businesses are fleeing in record numbers. Your juvenile “losers can’t make it there” excuse is as pitiful as you are.
> 
> It’s a state that promotes and supports promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual assault on women and children, drug use, illegal aliens, and communism among other things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's own country that ranks 6th, economically, in the *world*.
Click to expand...


Yes! And that’s going to last forever and ever and ever! 

Detroit was unavailable for comment.


----------



## Seawytch

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are people and businesses fleeing the state an alarming rate, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Losers (like yourself) who can't make it there and companies looking to pad their bottom lines with cheap labor that you people love to work for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO! That’s the response of a second grader. It’s a shit-hole state and _everyone_ knows it. People and businesses are fleeing in record numbers. Your juvenile “losers can’t make it there” excuse is as pitiful as you are.
> 
> It’s a state that promotes and supports promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual assault on women and children, drug use, illegal aliens, and communism among other things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's own country that ranks 6th, economically, in the *world*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes! And that’s going to last forever and ever and ever!
> 
> Detroit was unavailable for comment.
Click to expand...

Detroit is a city not a state. When was the city of Detroit's economy ranked in the 10 ten of WORLD economies?


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Detroit is a city not a state.


Very good, Kitty. Your high school GED is really paying off these days. 


Seawytch said:


> When was the city of Detroit's economy ranked in the 10 ten of WORLD economies?


Back before Dumbocrats ran it so far into the ground, it was forced to file bankruptcy. An entire major US city. The city which had “The Big Three” (GM, Ford, and Chrysler).

California debt clock stands at $584 billion. Half a trillion fucking dollars. California will be bankrupt. Soon. Very soon. Liberalism is a cancer that kills everything it touches.


----------



## Colin norris

whitehall said:


> The problem with the people's republik of California is that politics is based on liberal hypocrisy.  Hypocrite California lefties pretend to be outraged about east coast based corporate wealth and the disparity of income while they support the ultimate corporate criminals in the entertainment industry and the decadent display of wealth in H'wood. Is it possible that pot head Jerry Brown is cut from the same mold as NK's fat bellied pig Kim Jung Un and challenging the power of the United States in order to promote some sort of anarchy movement?



If it was a red state you couldn't give a shit. Grow up.


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detroit is a city not a state.
> 
> 
> 
> Very good, Kitty. Your high school GED is really paying off these days.
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the city of Detroit's economy ranked in the 10 ten of WORLD economies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back before Dumbocrats ran it so far into the ground, it was forced to file bankruptcy. An entire major US city. The city which had “The Big Three” (GM, Ford, and Chrysler).
> 
> California debt clock stands at $584 billion. Half a trillion fucking dollars. California will be bankrupt. Soon. Very soon. Liberalism is a cancer that kills everything it touches.
Click to expand...

Link to Detroit being in the top 10 of WORLD economies.
California isn't anywhere near bankruptcy. 





__





						Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
					





					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## Thinker101

Seawytch said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detroit is a city not a state.
> 
> 
> 
> Very good, Kitty. Your high school GED is really paying off these days.
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the city of Detroit's economy ranked in the 10 ten of WORLD economies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back before Dumbocrats ran it so far into the ground, it was forced to file bankruptcy. An entire major US city. The city which had “The Big Three” (GM, Ford, and Chrysler).
> 
> California debt clock stands at $584 billion. Half a trillion fucking dollars. California will be bankrupt. Soon. Very soon. Liberalism is a cancer that kills everything it touches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to Detroit being in the top 10 of WORLD economies.
> California isn't anywhere near bankruptcy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
Click to expand...


Surprise!!!

9 Most Bankrupt States In America: Is Yours On The List? | The Daily Wire


----------



## Seawytch

Thinker101 said:


> Surprise!!!
> 
> 9 Most Bankrupt States In America: Is Yours On The List? | The Daily Wire


Your article is from 2016


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> California isn't anywhere near bankruptcy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com


Hahahahahaha!!! Here is a screen shot of your stupid shit. Note the word I highlighted. *OPINION* (from a whack-job leftist had hard-left Bloomberg).

Now here is indisputable, concrete fact kitty. The California debt clock:




__





						State of California Debt Clock
					





					www.usdebtclock.org


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Your article is from 2016


I'm sorry...did something happen since 2016 to reverse California's misfortunes?

Did they lower taxes to attract businesses? Nope!

Did they reduce regulations to bring in new jobs? Nope!

Did they recall whack-job, bat-shit crazy Gavin Newsome? Nope!

So all they've done since 2016 is drive out MILLIONS of citizens, hundreds of thousands of jobs, thousands of corporations, and run up more debt.

Watching you deny that rain is wet, the sun is hot, and the sky is blue would be comical if it wasn't so ridiculous.

California is a *failed* state, kitty. You know it. I know it. Gavin Newsome knows it.


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> Hahahahahaha!!! Here is a screen shot of your stupid shit. Note the word I highlighted. *OPINION* (from a whack-job leftist had hard-left Bloomberg).
> 
> Now here is indisputable, concrete fact kitty. The California debt clock:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of California Debt Clock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usdebtclock.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 514289


Posting the debt clock doesn't disprove anything I posted. That's like me saying the sky is blue and you posting a picture of a snowy mountain. 

_The most trusted measure of economic strength says California is the world-beater among democracies. The state’s gross domestic product increased 21% during the past five years, dwarfing No. 2 New York (14%) and No. 3 Texas (12%), according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gains added $530 billion to the Golden State, 30% more than the increase for New York and Texas combined and equivalent to the entire economy of Sweden. Among the five largest economies, California outperforms the U.S., Japan and Germany with a growth rate exceeded only by China.

  _


----------



## Seawytch

P@triot said:


> I'm sorry...did something happen since 2016 to reverse California's misfortunes?
> 
> Did they lower taxes to attract businesses? Nope!
> 
> Did they reduce regulations to bring in new jobs? Nope!
> 
> Did they recall whack-job, bat-shit crazy Gavin Newsome? Nope!
> 
> So all they've done since 2016 is drive out MILLIONS of citizens, hundreds of thousands of jobs, thousands of corporations, and run up more debt.
> 
> Watching you deny that rain is wet, the sun is hot, and the sky is blue would be comical if it wasn't so ridiculous.
> 
> California is a *failed* state, kitty. You know it. I know it. Gavin Newsome knows it.


Yeah, Rottweiler old pup, it did...

_The most trusted measure of economic strength says California is the world-beater among democracies. The state’s gross domestic product *increased 21% during the past five years, *dwarfing No. 2 New York (14%) and No. 3 Texas (12%), according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gains added $530 billion to the Golden State, 30% more than the increase for New York and Texas combined and equivalent to the entire economy of Sweden. Among the five largest economies, California outperforms the U.S., Japan and Germany with a growth rate exceeded only by China._​


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Posting the debt clock doesn't disprove anything I posted.


That’s *exactly* what it does, kitty! We said it would be bankrupt like Detroit (and it will be). The debt clock proves it.

Businesses are fleeing the state in record numbers and you’re at half a *trillion* in debt.




__





						Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
					





					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Yeah, Rottweiler old pup, it did...​


Bwahahaha! Pointing to GDP doesn’t even remotely answer the question. Did _anything_ change with California? Did they change leadership, lower taxes, reduce regulations, or stop the hemorrhaging of people and businesses fleeing your *failed* state?

Nope!








						Moving to Texas: Why Tesla’s Elon Musk and big tech are leaving California
					

All eyes are on Texas after Tesla CEO Elon Musk and major tech companies emigrate from California. We take a look at what makes our Lone Star State so great.




					www.fox26houston.com


----------



## P@triot

Holy…fucking….shit kitty. Oracle - yes _Oracle_ - is leaving California for Texas. Larry Ellison. Left-wing Larry Ellison is saying “fuck this shit” and getting the hell out of Dodge (joining Tesla, Space X, and HP!

  








						Moving to Texas: Why Tesla’s Elon Musk and big tech are leaving California
					

All eyes are on Texas after Tesla CEO Elon Musk and major tech companies emigrate from California. We take a look at what makes our Lone Star State so great.




					www.fox26houston.com


----------



## Thinker101

Seawytch said:


> Your article is from 2016



My bad, apparently you aren't capable enough to find it on your own, so here ya go...

These Four Giant U.S. States are About to Go Bankrupt | InvestingAnswers


----------



## danielpalos

California has a staggering $75.7B budget surplus
					

California's coffers are bulging thanks to the high-flying Silicon Valley, surging stock market and a large share of professionals who were able to continue working remotely during Covid-19.




					www.politico.com


----------



## P@triot

Between 2009 and 2016 an estimated 13,000 businesses left California. The left-wing ideology is a cancer that kills anything it touches. It is a *failed* ideology.








						The Real Story of the California Recall
					

The economic and other benefits of the California corporate exodus to Texas and other states over the past three years are considerable.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

Leave it to a California woman to go to Afghanistan - where women are hated and oppressed. The left's deep level of stupidity is unmatched and unimaginable. 








						Pregnant California woman kicked in the belly by Taliban and hiding in Afghanistan is rescued
					

An American citizen who was hiding from the Taliban and stranded in Afghanistan has been rescued. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) confirmed that the pregnant woman, who is only known as "Nasria," is finally coming home to Southern California. Nasria is a 25-year-old pregnant woman who was stranded...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California is _priceless_. One super gross group (MS-13) torments another super gross group (LGBT). Only California could pit groups so gross against each other, than normal people can't even find someone to root for 








						Los Angeles is trying to clear out homeless camps from city park but MS-13 claims it as their gang territory
					

A Los Angeles official said that efforts to clear out a city park of homeless camps are being complicated by the MS-13 gang, which considers the park their territory.  	Officials are closing MacArthur Park in hopes of driving out the homeless and renovating the 35-acre recreation area, but the...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

The inept state of California can’t even unload ships 








						There's a record 100 ships floating off ports in Southern California despite Biden's 24/7 schedule
					

100 ships are waiting at anchor or in holding areas to dock and unload. Before the pandemic, the ports never saw more than 17 ships waiting to dock.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## P@triot

Folks, _this_ is what Democrat cities look like. Just total third-world shit-holes where stores have to be boarded up because of the thugs produced by the failed left-wing ideology…








						‘There’s nothing festive about ... boarded-up storefronts’: Union Square retailers look different this holiday season
					

Dozens of downtown San Francisco retailers were boarded up in the wake of mass robberies...




					www.sfchronicle.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

P@triot said:


> Folks, _this_ is what Democrat cities look like. Just total third-world shit-holes where stores have to be boarded up because of the thugs produced by the failed left-wing ideology…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘There’s nothing festive about ... boarded-up storefronts’: Union Square retailers look different this holiday season
> 
> 
> Dozens of downtown San Francisco retailers were boarded up in the wake of mass robberies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com


pay wall


----------



## Ame®icano

P@triot said:


> Folks, _this_ is what Democrat cities look like. Just total third-world shit-holes where stores have to be boarded up because of the thugs produced by the failed left-wing ideology…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘There’s nothing festive about ... boarded-up storefronts’: Union Square retailers look different this holiday season
> 
> 
> Dozens of downtown San Francisco retailers were boarded up in the wake of mass robberies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com


Those boards are called "diversity windows".


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Folks, _this_ is what Democrat cities look like. Just total third-world shit-holes where stores have to be boarded up because of the thugs produced by the failed left-wing ideology…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘There’s nothing festive about ... boarded-up storefronts’: Union Square retailers look different this holiday season
> 
> 
> Dozens of downtown San Francisco retailers were boarded up in the wake of mass robberies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com


The true end result of capitalism is poverty and robberies.


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> The true end result of capitalism is poverty and robberies.


ROFL!   The wealth we enjoy today is at least 100 times what people experienced 200 years ago, and capitalism is what made it possible.


----------



## Tax Man

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!   The wealth we enjoy today is at least 100 times what people experienced 200 years ago, and capitalism is what made it possible.


Must be nice to enjoy wealth!


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> Must be nice to enjoy wealth!


Try working for a change.


----------



## sartre play

What's the deal with the hate? We Americans can live anywhere we want, like your state better, stay there . Hate brings nothing good into life..


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Folks, _this_ is what Democrat cities look like. Just total third-world shit-holes where stores have to be boarded up because of the thugs produced by the failed left-wing ideology…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘There’s nothing festive about ... boarded-up storefronts’: Union Square retailers look different this holiday season
> 
> 
> Dozens of downtown San Francisco retailers were boarded up in the wake of mass robberies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfchronicle.com


Yeah, then we look at the rural Deep South.

fuck you


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tax Man said:


> The true end result of capitalism is poverty and robberies.



Nope.

But keep lying Nazi.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tax Man said:


> Must be nice to enjoy wealth!



Get a fucking job, there are millions available.


----------



## iceberg

miketex said:


> Texas and Texas.


you left off texas


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Yeah, then we look at the rural Deep South.
> 
> fuck you



The deep south is MUCH more civilized than Scat Francisco - which a mere 20 years ago was the greatest city on earth.

Ain't Communism grand?


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> The deep south is MUCH more civilized than Scat Francisco - which a mere 20 years ago was the greatest city on earth.
> 
> Ain't Communism grand?


I stand by my post.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> I stand by my post.



Yes, but you're a drooling moron.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yes, but you're a drooling moron.


I stand by my post and it doesn't have the racism the south still proudly claims.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> I stand by my post and it doesn't have the racism the south still proudly claims.



You are one of the most racist scumbags on the board.

Hating people for white skin is still racism, skanky.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tax Man said:


> The true end result of capitalism is poverty and robberies.



It looks like the true end to Communism is abject mental retardation.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California is _priceless_. One super gross group (MS-13) torments another super gross group (LGBT). Only California could pit groups so gross against each other, than normal people can't even find someone to root for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles is trying to clear out homeless camps from city park but MS-13 claims it as their gang territory
> 
> 
> A Los Angeles official said that efforts to clear out a city park of homeless camps are being complicated by the MS-13 gang, which considers the park their territory.  	Officials are closing MacArthur Park in hopes of driving out the homeless and renovating the 35-acre recreation area, but the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com


The blaze?

Seriously, thought the white board guy was dead.


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> The blaze?
> 
> Seriously, thought the white board guy was dead.


Karl Rove is the guy with the white board.  He was Bush II's campaign manager.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> The blaze?
> 
> Seriously, thought the white board guy was dead.




Funny, The Blaze has never had to settle defamation lawsuits...

What about Reich outlets like CNN, the Washington Post, NBC....




Stupid fucking Nazi.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


MA!
Better schools, four seasons, better sports teams and we don’t have Gavin Newsome.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> The true end result of capitalism liberalism is poverty and robberies.


Like all uneducated people, you need someone to review and edit your content for you. I have taken the liberty to assist you. Please see the correction I made above to make your sentence *accurate* for once.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!   The wealth we enjoy today is at least 100 times what people experienced 200 years ago, and capitalism is what made it possible.


You'll have to excuse @TaxMan. Like all on the left, he is extremely uneducated and mooches off of government.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> Must be nice to enjoy wealth!


It really _is_! So much better than the poverty delivered by the left-wing ideology.


----------



## P@triot

Gavin Newsom and the Democrats have absolutely destroyed California. They have turned it into a third-world shit-hole.








						The Death of California
					

As California sinks into the mire, it embraces ever more radical social policies. Radicalism is the moral justification for policy failure.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> The blaze?
> 
> Seriously, thought the white board guy was dead.


When one cannot dispute the message, one tries hard to discredit the messenger.

(Psst..._stupid_...The Blaze has an exceptional track record for accurate journalism)


----------



## BS Filter

And Nancy Pelosi says she can't figure out why California is going to hell.  Stupid kunt.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> When one cannot dispute the message, one tries hard to discredit the messenger.
> 
> (Psst..._stupid_...The Blaze has an exceptional track record for accurate journalism)


Accurate journalism?

As judged by whom?


----------



## otto105

BS Filter said:


> And Nancy Pelosi says she can't figure out why California is going to hell.  Stupid kunt.


There is no hell.

Well, if you don't count the old south.


----------



## BS Filter

otto105 said:


> There is no hell.
> 
> Well, if you don't count the old south.


Anything to add about the topic?  Dumb shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> There is no hell.
> 
> Well, if you don't count the old south.



Seig Heil indeed, Nazi cvnt.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Accurate journalism?
> 
> As judged by whom?


As "judged" by history. You can't find reputable sources showing they were lying. Do you have any idea how many times CNN has been caught lying? ABC and NBC quite a bit as well. The Blaze? Not a single instance. Not one.

History and reality are the _ultimate _"judge". They win.


----------



## P@triot

Americans are literally fleeing California like it is fuck'n Venezuela or Guatemala. What an absolute shit-hole.








						Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Larry Elder react as Dave Rubin joins MASSIVE California exodus
					

What took you so long?




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


Gee, and most thought the Christian Churches , the nra, Trump and the gop were filled with degenerate law breakers. The gop out numbers Dems administrative in  felony charges over 200 to one. *Ever check the 10 worse states to live ? California isn’t one. It’s filled with red neck gop led crime ridden states. *


----------



## bodecea

BS Filter said:


> And Nancy Pelosi says she can't figure out why California is going to hell.  Stupid kunt.


Here comes the misogynist INCELs.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> As "judged" by history. You can't find reputable sources showing they were lying. Do you have any idea how many times CNN has been caught lying? ABC and NBC quite a bit as well. The Blaze? Not a single instance. Not one.
> 
> History and reality are the _ultimate _"judge". They win.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The gop out numbers Dems administrative in  felony charges over 200 to one.


1. Not even remotely true 

2. Asshole Democrats refuse to indict/prosecute fellow asshole Democrats. That means Dems get away with egregious crimes. Bill Clinton *admitted* to committing perjury (a fucking _felony_) and nothing happened. Nothing. Just let that sink in, snowflake.


Dagosa said:


> Ever check the 10 worse states to live ? California isn’t one.


Yep...and California is by far the worst. That's why Americans are fleeing that shit-hole like it's Honduras!

By the way, low-IQ nitwit, do you even understand statistics? Let me give you a quick lesson here:


> Louisiana ranked worst in the nation for the Opportunity, *Crime* & Corrections, and Natural Environment


See "crime" there? Well the crime capital of Louisiana (and at the top in the entire United States for that matter) is New Orleans. And New Orleans is as far left as any city in the United States. A Dumbocrat Mayor (for decades) and a Dumbocrat city council (for decades).

See, you're literally too dumb to realize that even the most conservative states have large pockets of failed left-wing assholes who bring down statistics for the entire state.




__





						Worst States to Live in 2022
					





					worldpopulationreview.com


----------



## P@triot

bodecea said:


> Here comes the misogynist INCELs.


I couldn't agree more. USMB is filled with disgusting left-wing INCEL misogynists. Like this one here from Colin norris in post #183 of another thread:


Colin norris said:


> Trump was a complete failure and you worshipped him like a god. He married a porn star *and his big titted daughter* is  no better.


We see this type of behavior from damn near every "male" on the left. They are inept with women, which makes them feel bad about themselves, which in turn causes them to hate women. You just know this tool Colin is just sitting in a trailer-park somewhere jerking-off to Ivanka Trump three or four times a day, then going into a tizzy because "she made him do that".


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> View attachment 581240


Your bias check site is a con.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> Your bias check site is a con.


PolitiFact | Glenn Beck


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> View attachment 581240





*MEDIA BIAS CHECK
*



*These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. *See all Left Bias sources.

No one gives a fuck what your fact changers say.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> Your bias check site is a con.



A fraud, they are leftist hacks putting their thumb on the scales.

No one on any side believes the fact changers anymore. It isn't 2002 anymore.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> PolitiFact | Glenn Beck


Politifraud?

Was Rachel Maddow on vacation?


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Politifraud?
> 
> Was Rachel Maddow on vacation?


Work on the message, not the messenger boi.


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> PolitiFact | Glenn Beck


CNN.   I win.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> A fraud, they are leftist hacks putting their thumb on the scales.
> 
> No one on any side believes the fact changers anymore. It isn't 2002 anymore.


All fact-check sites are frauds.  I knew it the first time I saw one.  It's like global warming.  Anything that supports the leftwing narrative is a con.


----------



## Colin norris

P@triot said:


> I couldn't agree more. USMB is filled with disgusting left-wing INCEL misogynists. Like this one here from Colin norris in post #183 of another thread:
> 
> We see this type of behavior from damn near every "male" on the left. They are inept with women, which makes them feel bad about themselves, which in turn causes them to hate women. You just know this tool Colin is just sitting in a trailer-park somewhere jerking-off to Ivanka Trump three or four times a day, then going into a tizzy because "she made him do that".



You're  pathetic. Not one word have I said is untrue. So out come the standard Republican hate as usual. 
You sold your souls to  trump because he stood against everything democract. 
He was a complete failure at home and abroad. He was not a POTUS arsehole. 
You ignored  all his failures like good Christian republicans do just to not gave a Democrat in power.  You'll do and say and defend anything but the truth. 
You're a poor example of a human  being son.  More like the exhaust pipe of society.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> 1. Not even remotely true
> 
> 2. Asshole Democrats refuse to indict/prosecute fellow asshole Democrats. That means Dems get away with egregious crimes. Bill Clinton *admitted* to committing perjury (a fucking _felony_) and nothing happened. Nothing. Just let that sink in, snowflake.
> 
> Yep...and California is by far the worst. That's why Americans are fleeing that shit-hole like it's Honduras!
> 
> By the way, low-IQ nitwit, do you even understand statistics? Let me give you a quick lesson here:
> 
> See "crime" there? Well the crime capital of Louisiana (and at the top in the entire United States for that matter) is New Orleans. And New Orleans is as far left as any city in the United States. A Dumbocrat Mayor (for decades) and a Dumbocrat city council (for decades).
> 
> See, you're literally too dumb to realize that even the most conservative states have large pockets of failed left-wing assholes who bring down statistics for the entire state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst States to Live in 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldpopulationreview.com


Your post is irrelevant. You have not references just made up shit. The lawless states are far and away mostly republican.
Criminal indictments  ? Not even close. Over 300 for repugs and counting. Let’s get real. Crime follows repugs around like recessions they have.








						PolitiFact - Many more criminal indictments under Trump, Reagan and Nixon than under Obama, Clinton and Carter
					

A Facebook post claimed that there have been 317 criminal indictments in the administrations of three recent Republican




					www.politifact.com
				




Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments: 

Trump (Republican) — 215

Nixon (Republican) — 76

Reagan (Republican) — 26

"Recent administrations with the LEAST criminal indictments: 

Obama (Democrat) — 0

Carter (Democrat) — 1

Clinton (Democrat) — 2

"Notice a pattern?"


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Work on the message, not the messenger boi.








Bitch, you invoked Politifraud to slander Glenn Beck, you LITERALLY attacked the messenger.

You're not smart - seriously.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> All fact-check sites are frauds.  I knew it the first time I saw one.  It's like global warming.  Anything that supports the leftwing narrative is a con.



When the "fact check" thing started about 2000, there was some hope that independent research would cut through the crap of the popular media. But then Polititifraud became the standard. Not because they were accurate, far from it, because they were reliably left.

It amuses me that the Nazi drones think dragging out the fact changers somehow strengthens their arguments. No one, on any side believes them. The Nazi bitches like Otto use them BECAUSE they are Reich hacks who will vomit out the party line 100% of the time. We Americans look at them no different than we would Keith Olberman or Don Lemon. They have zero credibility - they are just leftist propaganda.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Colin norris said:


> You're  pathetic. Not one word have I said is untrue.










Colin norris said:


> So out come the standard Republican hate as usual.
> You sold your souls to  trump because he stood against everything democract.



Standing against Fascism, the establishment of a collectivist, totalitarian dictatorship, and the destruction of the Constitutional Republic is a pretty damned good reason to support Trump.



Colin norris said:


> He was a complete failure at home and abroad. He was not a POTUS arsehole.



He had Russia collapsing as energy independence in the USA destroyed their revenue stream. Iran also was torn apart without the oil income.

But Xi's man took care of that as soon as he got in office. America can count on Quid Pro - to sell us out to our enemies.

Trump had China on their heels, but now China has their man in office. 

Trump presided over the greatest economy in the history of the nation. All of the bullshit you Nazis spew about Quid Pro is just the economy recovering from the Bioweapon China unleashed.

Quid Pro has the advantage of riding the Trump Economy. but of course he's fucking even that up - corrupt pile of shit fucks everything up.



Colin norris said:


> You ignored  all his failures like good Christian republicans do just to not gave a Democrat in power.  You'll do and say and defend anything but the truth.
> You're a poor example of a human  being son.  More like the exhaust pipe of society.



Containing China was a failure for you traitor Fascists, but was a major win for America..

Our goals are different. You seek the utter and complete destruction of the nation, we seek to build a more prosperous union.

Trump is an enemy of China, an enemy of fascism, hence he is your enemy.


----------



## BS Filter

bodecea said:


> Here comes the misogynist INCELs.


Fuck you. Idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BS Filter said:


> Fuck you. Idiot.



Pete (bodecea)  is my entire ignore list. 

Pete is a nasty troll with nothing to contribute to the board.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bitch, you invoked Politifraud to slander Glenn Beck, you LITERALLY attacked the messenger.
> 
> You're not smart - seriously.


I offered background on glenn beck. You just bitch about Politifact.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> I offered background on glenn beck. You just bitch about Politifact.



You slandered an enemy of your Reich, then bitched about focusing on the SUBJECT..

The Irony is too rich.,


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> I offered background on glenn beck. You just bitch about Politifact.


Uncensored offered background on Politifact.   Why do you have a problem with one and not the other?  Because you're a brainwashed troll, or course.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> You slandered an enemy of your Reich, then bitched about focusing on the SUBJECT..
> 
> The Irony is too rich.,


I did no slandering of beck. He has been a lying conspiracy nut job for a long time.


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> I did no slandering of beck. He has been a lying conspiracy nut job for a long time.


When a prog says that, it means the guy was right.


----------



## P@triot

Colin norris said:


> You ignored  all his failures like good Christian republicans do* just to not gave* a Democrat in power.  You'll do and say and defend anything but the truth.


The Chinese disinformation account continues to struggle with the English language


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> I did no slandering of beck. He has been a lying conspiracy nut job for a long time.


First of all, you dumb dill-hole, Glenn Beck is *not* a journalist for The Blaze. He's not even the fucking editor.

Secondly, don't whine about someone who has exposed your ideology for the fucking fraud that it is. Either present proof that The Blaze has published a story that wasn't accurate (as we do with CNN daily) or shut the fuck up.

Every time you people are incapable of backing up your claims with facts (which is every time), you just resort to personal attacks. None of us could give a shit about your repressed homosexual feelings towards Glenn Beck. Either show where The Blaze got a story wrong or hit the road, asshat.


----------



## P@triot

Liberalism is a cancer. It literally kills _everything_ it touches. Which is why California is now a third-world shit-hole.








						The California Dream Is Dying
					

The once-dynamic state is closing the door on economic opportunity.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> I did no slandering of beck. He has been a lying conspiracy nut job for a long time.



Now you think you can lie your way out of it.

Instead for refuting the points, you linked to a radical left hate site with a smear article on the author.

You're a clown.


----------



## Colin norris

P@triot said:


> The Chinese disinformation account continues to struggle with the English language



You've got a little paranoia issue with me being here. You fire in several replies to the one thread one after another. That's a sign you don't have a long concentration span. 
I'm going no where son. You'll get used to me or leave first. I dont care what idiots like you say, you are a dickhead.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> When a prog says that, it means the guy was right.


No, it means his a piece shit…which is the reason you change his diaper at no charge.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Now you think you can lie your way out of it.
> 
> Instead for refuting the points, you linked to a radical left hate site with a smear article on the author.
> 
> You're a clown.


Politifact is not a leftist site.

Try again


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> No, it means his a piece shit…which is the reason you change his diaper at no charge.


"His a piece of shit?  It actually means that you're a piece of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> Politifact is not a leftist site.
> 
> Try again


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Politifact is not a leftist site.



ROFL

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA








otto105 said:


> Try again



Yeah, if politifraud isn't a leftist site, Rush Limbaugh wasn't a right wing host.

You fucking Nazis are something else....


----------



## P@triot

Colin norris said:


> You fire in several replies to the one thread one after another. That's a sign you don't have a long concentration span.


WTF? My ability to read and respond to more than one thread in a night is a "sign" that I "don't have a long concentration span" in _your_ mind? Seriously? 

It sounds to me like you're getting really frustrated by my ability to expose you and your disinformation.


----------



## P@triot

Colin norris said:


> You fire in several replies to the one thread one after another.


That is some seriously poor grammar there. You'd think that Xi Jinping would send this fool to some English classes _before_ deploying him.


----------



## dudmuck

Uncensored2008 said:


> ROFL
> 
> BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if politifraud isn't a leftist site, Rush Limbaugh wasn't a right wing host.
> 
> You fucking Nazis are something else....


Politifact has on Biden about 40 mostly false and about another 40 false statements, and 6 pants on fire






						PolitiFact | Joe Biden
					

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.




					www.politifact.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

dudmuck said:


> Politifact has on Biden about 40 mostly false and about another 40 false statements, and 6 pants on fire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact | Joe Biden
> 
> 
> PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com



Mark Levin called out Trump for lies.

I don't insult people by claiming he is not right wing.

Politifraud is a propaganda outlet for the DNC.

Nothing more.

{
PolitiFact media bias rating is Lean Left.​PolitiFact has a Lean Left bias.
Fact checking sites often display bias in what stories they choose to fact check, as well as how they interpret information. Often, fact check outlets will interpret information for the reader, drawing a conclusion rather than just giving the facts and allowing the reader to decide the meaning for themselves.
Independent Reviews: 2020 & 2021​Numerous independent reviews by AllSides found that Politifact's bias is Lean Left.
In July 2021, PolitiFact issued a "fact-check" with the headline "_Biden, Harris distrusted Trump with COVID-19 vaccines, not the vaccines themselves_." The piece argued that videos of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris expressing skepticism/hesitancy about a COVID-19 vaccine, should it be developed under Trump, did not constitute general vaccine hesitancy but rather, distrust of Trump. This "fact check" constitutes an _interpretation_ of Biden and Harris' remarks, not a fact check. A fact check would have simply included the quotes from Biden and Harris, and allowed readers to interpret the meaning for themselves.
In a widely-criticized piece published April 2016, Politifact said it is false to describe a person by their biological sex if that person identifies with another sex. Assessing a presidential campaign ad by Ted Cruz, Politifact wrote that “it’s not accurate to say that transgender women are men.” Following criticism, the website issued an editor's note and then changed the article to state, "“it’s not entirely accurate for Cruz to define a transgender woman as ‘a grown man pretending to be a woman.’”
Coronavirus Lab Leak Theory​On May 17, 2021, amid calls for a deeper investigation of the theory that the COVID-19 pandemic started with a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China, Politifact removed a fact check from its database in which it had referred to the hypothesis as a "debunked conspiracy theory."}









						PolitiFact Media Bias Rating
					

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of PolitiFact. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.




					www.allsides.com


----------



## P@triot

dudmuck said:


> Politifact has on Biden about 40 mostly false and about another 40 false statements, and 6 pants on fire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact | Joe Biden
> 
> 
> PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com


So they post roughly 1/100th of his lies? Just enough to make rubes like you think they are "unbias".


----------



## P@triot

Democrats have turned California into a third-world shit-hole. How sad.








						Top Union Pacific official blasts far-left policies over 'spiraling crisis' of rail theft, threatens to leave Los Angeles
					

A top official with Union Pacific revealed last week that the company could move its rail operations from Los Angeles County unless law enforcement stops thieves from raiding shipping containers.Last week, a viral video showed how thieves are pillaging through shipping containers in the infamous...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

Even Gavin Newsom just admitted that Democrats have turned California into a third-world nation 


> see what everybody's seeing, asking myself, 'What the hell is going on?' I mean, it looked like a third-world country











						Gavin Newsom asks, 'What the hell is going on?' after seeing thousands of stolen, trashed delivery boxes along LA train tracks — and he's massively mocked
					

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom donned work gloves and was recorded on video Thursday helping clean up the thousands of delivery boxes strewn along Los Angeles railroad tracks — the result of large-scale, organized looting from broken-into cargo cars that's been an ongoing problem but...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Not a Monkeys Uncle

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California



What the Left did to CA is what they want to do to America


----------



## P@triot

California liberals wanted to raise money for a children’s soccer league through _sex_ _toys_? The shit-hole state of California strikes again.








						Sacramento parents outraged over sex toy fundraiser for soccer team
					

Parents in Sacramento, California, were outraged to find out that sex toy sales were being used as a fundraiser for a soccer team with an extensive youth program.  	The startling fundraiser was sent to supporters of the Natomas Fútbol Academy via email and directed them to a website that sold...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## ScorpioRising007

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


There are things california is doing that I wish other states would.  I like how California is becoming first state to consider having a universal healthcare system for all Californian's. Brillant plan. There are a lot of things California just does so much better than the other states.


----------



## P@triot

ScorpioRising007 said:


> There are things california is doing that I wish other states would.


Like _what_?


ScorpioRising007 said:


> I like how California is becoming first state to *consider* having a universal healthcare system for all Californian's.



"Considering" is not an action. I can consider feeding homeless children, but that won't fill their empty bellies.
Much more importantly, California isn't even close to being the "first state to consider universal healthcare system". You might want to Google "Romneycare" for Massachusetts (which actually implemented 20 years ago what you're crowing about California now _considering_ )



ScorpioRising007 said:


> *Brillant* plan. There are a lot of things California just does so much better than the other states.


Man, I seriously don't know where to begin with your comment here.

First you claim California is amazing for just thinking about something. Then you claim that they were the first to think about it, when other states have actually implemented it decades ago. Then you call their consideration a "plan" when it's not a "plan" at all at this point. And just to put the cherry on the top, you misspelled "brilliant" (making the irony of your entire post completely off the charts).

It's no wonder you're amazed with California. You're clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California continues to embarrass itself…








						San Francisco homeless man says he moved from Texas because it's 'easy' in the Bay Area: 'They pay you to be homeless here'
					

A homeless man in California recently admitted that he moved to the West Coast from Texas because he knew it was easier to live the homeless lifestyle in San Francisco."If you're gonna be homeless, it's pretty f***ing easy here," he said of the Bay Area city. "I mean, if we're gonna be...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

This is what the left-wing ideology does. It causes extreme poverty and _misery_ - until people flee.


----------



## P@triot

This is what the left-wing ideology does. It causes extreme poverty and _misery_ - until people have no choice but to flee.


> Meanwhile, as Democratic lawmakers "protect children from harmful and outdated stereotypes", many kids educated in California public schools cannot read or perform math at state levels of proficiency, standards that are not particularly high.
> 
> In 2019, barely half of kids in public schools were reading-proficient, while only 40% were math-proficient.


The Democrats NEED an ignorant electorate to win elections.








						No Wonder People, Businesses Are Dumping California
					

California policies are driving out businesses and individuals alike. Elon Musk, for example, is relocating Tesla headquarters to Texas.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

This is what the left-wing ideology does. It causes extreme poverty and _misery_ - until people have no choice but to flee.


> UCLA economist Lee Ohanian co-authored an August report on the tax and regulatory policies causing businesses to ditch California at an unprecedented rate. The report found: “Unless policy reforms reverse this course, California will continue to lose businesses, both large, established businesses, as well as young, rapidly growing businesses, some of which will become transformational giants of tomorrow.”


The left dogmatically clings to a failed ideology at ALL costs. Even if it results in extreme poverty and misery for everyone.








						No Wonder People, Businesses Are Dumping California
					

California policies are driving out businesses and individuals alike. Elon Musk, for example, is relocating Tesla headquarters to Texas.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

P@triot said:


> This is what the left-wing ideology does. It causes extreme poverty and _misery_ - until people have no choice but to flee.
> 
> The Democrats NEED an ignorant electorate to win elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Wonder People, Businesses Are Dumping California
> 
> 
> California policies are driving out businesses and individuals alike. Elon Musk, for example, is relocating Tesla headquarters to Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com



They need fraud a lot more.


----------



## P@triot

California is the _ultimate_ left-wing shit-hole.








						Is California Going Up in Flames? | PragerU
					

California used to be the Golden State. Now the Blackout State might be more accurate, as the fear of wildfires forces public utilities to periodically power…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## P@triot

Imagine making genocide the cornerstone of your platform… 🤮








						California Goes All in on Abortion Promotion
					

In anticipation of the Dobbs decision, there's a blizzard of pro-abortion bills sweeping through California's Legislature.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Imagine making genocide the cornerstone of your platform… 🤮
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Goes All in on Abortion Promotion
> 
> 
> In anticipation of the Dobbs decision, there's a blizzard of pro-abortion bills sweeping through California's Legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


Define genocide.


----------



## eagle1462010

otto105 said:


> Define genocide.


Killing over 63 million unborn babies.......with no remorse...........and somehow thinking you are Righteous.

And many doing it ARE PROUD OF IT.

Genocidal maniacs.


----------



## otto105

eagle1462010 said:


> Killing over 63 million unborn babies.......with no remorse...........and somehow thinking you are Righteous.
> 
> And many doing it ARE PROUD OF IT.
> 
> Genocidal maniacs.


Genocide (noun): the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

So....


----------



## Papageorgio

Sad that people chose and enjoy killing babies without remorse. Disgusting what our throw away, self indulgent life style has spawned.


----------



## eagle1462010

otto105 said:


> Genocide (noun): the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
> 
> So....


Unborn people would be people if you didn't kill them.  Your objection is over ruled.


----------



## otto105

Papageorgio said:


> Sad that people chose and enjoy killing babies without remorse. Disgusting what our throw away, self indulgent life style has spawned.


Who enjoys killing babies?


----------



## otto105

eagle1462010 said:


> Unborn people would be people if you didn't kill them.  Your objection is over ruled.


I kill babies?

You people?


----------



## eagle1462010

otto105 said:


> I kill babies?
> 
> You people?


Yes .............You who support barbarism of so many abortions are killing babies.

Did My typing STUTTER TO YOU?


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Genocide (noun): the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
> 
> So....



A nation like America, brite boi?


----------



## Papageorgio

otto105 said:


> Who enjoys killing babies?


I’ll let you figure it out. You seem smart, but if you don’t really know, then there is little to no point explaining.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Who enjoys killing babies?



The Nazi democrat party. In fact it is the most loved and sacred act - infant sacrifice to Moloch. You are ghouls.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Imagine making genocide the cornerstone of your platform… 🤮
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Goes All in on Abortion Promotion
> 
> 
> In anticipation of the Dobbs decision, there's a blizzard of pro-abortion bills sweeping through California's Legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


About time. While you’re at it, let’s do away with the death penalty. You anti abortion people are all for it, right ?


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> About time. While you’re at it, let’s do away with the death penalty. You anti abortion people are all for it, right ?


Sure am.  So which unborn child has committed a crime worthy of being executed.

Here you are virtue signaling comparing Charles Manson to an unborn baby.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dagosa said:


> About time. While you’re at it, let’s do away with the death penalty. You anti abortion people are all for it, right ?



How many appeals is a baby given before you ghouls put them to death?


----------



## otto105

eagle1462010 said:


> Yes .............You who support barbarism of so many abortions are killing babies.
> 
> Did My typing STUTTER TO YOU?


I support a person decision to make their own choice on raising children. 

You want an authoritarian state in people's bedrooms and medical decisions.


----------



## otto105

Papageorgio said:


> I’ll let you figure it out. You seem smart, but if you don’t really know, then there is little to no point explaining.


So, who are these people?

That seems like an easy question for you.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> How many appeals is a baby given before you ghouls put them to death?


When did a zygote become a baby?


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> I support a person decision to make their own choice on raising children.



Got an unruly 10 year old? Kill em'..

democrats gunna be Nazis..


otto105 said:


> You want an authoritarian state in people's bedrooms and medical decisions.



Killing others isn't a 'medical decision," ghoul.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> When did a zygote become a baby?



Zygote? You mean less than a week?

Lying fucking ghoul.

I get it, you need to dehumanize your victims. 

Hitler did the same - and you're so much like him.


----------



## eagle1462010

otto105 said:


> I support a person decision to make their own choice on raising children.
> 
> You want an authoritarian state in people's bedrooms and medical decisions.


Lol

Sure I do.  Lmao

Stop murderering babies barbarian


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Got an unruly 10 year old? Kill em'..
> 
> democrats gunna be Nazis..
> 
> 
> Killing others isn't a 'medical decision," ghoul.


A 10 year person isn't a zygote or a fetus. Is all you have false equivalency?


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zygote? You mean less than a week?
> 
> Lying fucking ghoul.
> 
> I get it, you need to dehumanize your victims.
> 
> Hitler did the same - and you're so much like him.


Are you stupid or dumb?


Also, I claim Godwin's law so go take a seat in the losers lounge.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> A 10 year person isn't a zygote or a fetus. Is all you have false equivalency?



If a zygote was ever aborted, it was an anomaly. 

You don't even know what the word means, do you ghoul?









						What is Zygote?- Definition, Formation, And Development Of Zygote
					

A zygote is a cell formed as a result of the fusion of male and female germ cells. Explore the definition, formation, and development of zygote only @ BYJU'S.




					byjus.com
				




In most abortions the victim is about 4 to 5 months gestation. Fully developed heart and brain.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> If a zygote was ever aborted, it was an anomaly.
> 
> You don't even know what the word means, do you ghoul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Zygote?- Definition, Formation, And Development Of Zygote
> 
> 
> A zygote is a cell formed as a result of the fusion of male and female germ cells. Explore the definition, formation, and development of zygote only @ BYJU'S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> byjus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most abortions the victim is about 4 to 5 months gestation. Fully developed heart and brain.


93% of abortions occur before 13 weeks.

And you still don't get to decide the size of other peoples families.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


Define better and for who?


----------



## otto105

eagle1462010 said:


> Lol
> 
> Sure I do.  Lmao
> 
> Stop murderering babies barbarian


I murder babies?

Which reality are you in? Can you describe it?


----------



## Zincwarrior

butchyboy said:


> The politicians have ruined it all. Look at this:
> 
> View attachment 154049
> 
> A house very similar to this is texas would cost 60K or less. Here's a 500K home around here.
> 
> View attachment 154052


Er...you haven't looked at Central Texas recently...


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> 93% of abortions occur before 13 weeks.
> 
> And you still don't get to decide the size of other peoples families.



Bullshit.

If abortion is so wonderful, abort yourself and show us!


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> If abortion is so wonderful, abort yourself and show us!


Killing myself would be a suicide idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> I murder babies?
> 
> Which reality are you in? Can you describe it?



Do you?

Are you an assistant to an abortionist? 

With psycho ghouls like you, I generally suspect there is a profit angle involved.

The Abortion Industrial Complex is a billion dollar industry - funded by taxpayers.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> If abortion is so wonderful, abort yourself and show us!


Prove the fact wrong then.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> If abortion is so wonderful, abort yourself and show us!


A libertarian in favor of government control of a person's body. Hypocrite.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Do you?
> 
> Are you an assistant to an abortionist?
> 
> With psycho ghouls like you, I generally suspect there is a profit angle involved.
> 
> The Abortion Industrial Complex is a billion dollar industry - funded by taxpayers.


Is anything that you post factual?

Or interesting?


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Prove the fact wrong then.



Abort yourself and I will!


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abort yourself and I will!



Grow up boi.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zincwarrior said:


> A libertarian in favor of government control of a person's body. Hypocrite.



I have no problem with any woman (or man) wanting to control their own body. By all means, pull your own arms and legs off. Have fun.

But you want to attack someone else's body, you have a victim in mind.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of another's nose.

Killing someone is initiating violence.

No libertarian initiates violence.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Is anything that you post factual?
> 
> Or interesting?



Again, with one like you, there is definitely money involved. You are gaining from these deaths.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Grow up boi.



Abort yourself and show us all how great it is.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Uncensored2008 said:


> I have no problem with any woman (or man) wanting to control their own body. By all means, pull your own arms and legs off. Have fun.
> 
> But you want to attack someone else's body, you have a victim in mind.
> 
> Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of another's nose.
> 
> Killing someone is initiating violence.
> 
> No libertarian initiates violence.


No libertarian makes one person the slave to another.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zincwarrior said:


> No libertarian makes one person the slave to another.



No libertarian initiates violence against the defenseless.


----------



## Papageorgio

otto105 said:


> So, who are these people?
> 
> That seems like an easy question for you.


Again, you seem to have some reading comprehension issues. Like I said, if you don't know, there is no point in trying to explain it.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Who enjoys killing babies?


Every member of the Democrat Party


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> About time. While you’re at it, let’s do away with the death penalty. You anti abortion people are all for it, right ?


Vintage Dumbocrat right here ☝️ . Says “it’s about time” to unlimited infanticide but thinks violent criminals shouldn’t face consequences.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> I support a person decision to make their own choice on raising children.


If you murder a baby, you’re not “raising” it. The fact that you have to be disingenuous proves you’re on the wrong side of the issue.


otto105 said:


> You want an authoritarian state in people's bedrooms and medical decisions.


So you support rape? I mean, after all, if you want rape to be illegal then you want an authoritarian state in people's bedrooms.

You’re fucking gross. You support rape and infanticide.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> When did a zygote become a baby?


At the very moment it became a “zygote”. DNA proves that it is a unique and separate human life. Stop denying science.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> When did a zygote become a baby?


You Nazis did the same thing during the Holocaust. “When did the dirty Jew become a person?”. Man you people are fucking _gross_.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> A 10 year person isn't a zygote or a fetus. *Is all you have false equivalency*?


Coming from the person who calls the murder of babies “healthcare”


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> A 10 year person isn't a zygote or a fetus. *Is all you have false equivalency*?


Coming from the person who calls a baby “a zygote”


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> And you still don't get to decide the size of other peoples families.


Want to bet? We just did.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Killing myself would be a suicide idiot.


And killing a baby _is_ murder, idiot.

By the way, don’t call others an “idiot” when you’re so fucking uneducated, you fail to place a comma after suicide.


----------



## P@triot

Zincwarrior said:


> A libertarian in favor of government control of a person's body. Hypocrite.


Since you’re so deeply uneducated, we made a very simple graphic for you. We’re not in favor of government “controlling a person’s body”. We’re in favor of government stopping fascists such as yourself from taking the life of someone else.


----------



## P@triot

Zincwarrior said:


> No libertarian makes one person the slave to another.


Motherhood isn’t “slavery”. The fact that you people literally have to make shit up and constantly change the definition of words just proves you’re on the wrong side of the issue and you know it.

People on the side of truth and facts don’t need to resort to those disgusting tactics.


----------



## Papageorgio

otto105 said:


> I support a person decision to make their own choice on raising children.
> 
> You want an authoritarian state in people's bedrooms and medical decisions.


So you are against mandatory vaccines in children If the parent’s refuse?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Vintage Dumbocrat right here ☝️ . Says “it’s about time” to unlimited infanticide but thinks violent criminals shouldn’t face consequences.


Life in prison isn’t a consequence ? You’re fraudulent post is obvious.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> And killing a baby _is_ murder, idiot.
> 
> By the way, don’t call others an “idiot” when you’re so fucking uneducated, you fail to place a comma after suicide.


You guys murder people all the time. Passing  bills that keep everyone from affording copays for life saving drugs is second degree murder.


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> Sure am.  So which unborn child has committed a crime worthy of being executed.
> 
> Here you are virtue signaling comparing Charles Manson to an unborn baby.


2 million in prison. 5% are completely innocent. Do the math. 
They are just as innocent and repugnants aren’t interested. 

Says the party who is a responsible for thousands of dead children by being * against post natal child care Funding.
So, you’re going to kill pregnant  women in order to bring a child to birth who has no chance of survival ? You’re going to do away with birth control too. There are pregnant young girls who would die during the birthing process after being raped you’re now going to kill.  Congrats. You’ve reached the level of stupidity.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Vintage Dumbocrat right here ☝️ . Says “it’s about time” to unlimited infanticide but thinks violent criminals shouldn’t face consequences.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> 2 million in prison. 5% are completely innocent. Do the math.
> They are just as innocent and repugnants aren’t interested.
> 
> Says the party who is a responsible for thousands of dead children by being * against post natal child care Funding.
> So, you’re going to kill pregnant  women in order to bring a child to birth who has no chance of survival ? You’re going to do away with birth control too. There are pregnant young girls who would die during the birthing process after being raped you’re now going to kill.  Congrats. You’ve reached the level of stupidity.


Just because you say so.........sure ...........sure.......


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


>


Democrats get their political information from _comedians_


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Life in prison isn’t a consequence ? You’re fraudulent post is obvious.


No. It’s not. At all.

And let’s not forget that “life in prison” doesn’t even exist. You Dumbocrats keeps letting violent criminals out on _parole_.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You guys murder people all the time. Passing  bills that keep everyone from affording copays for life saving drugs is second degree murder.


Nobody has ever passed a bill that keeps someone from “affording” life saving drugs. You’re clearly a Chinese or Russian disinformation account because all you do is push asinine propaganda.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dagosa said:


> Life in prison isn’t a consequence ? You’re fraudulent post is obvious.



And by "life" you mean the couple of weeks until George Gascone let's them out...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dagosa said:


> You guys murder people all the time. Passing  bills that keep everyone from affording copays for life saving drugs is second degree murder.



Did you get kicked in the head by a mule THEN have your head run over by a steamroller?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> No. It’s not. At all.
> 
> And let’s not forget that “life in prison” doesn’t even exist. You Dumbocrats keeps letting violent criminals out on _parole_.


Idiot. Judges decide sentences, not  politicians. . Parole boards decide when prisoners are eligible for parole. How many times have you ever actually researched anything and not just listened to Tucker.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> No. It’s not. At all.
> 
> And let’s not forget that “life in prison” doesn’t even exist. You Dumbocrats keeps letting violent criminals out on _parole_.


Your ignorance is stunning. Violent crimes like first degree murder are often given life sentences w/o parole. How long have you been living under  the Tucker rock of ignorance. 
“Oftentimes, a violent crime like murder will result in a life sentence without the possibility of parole.”


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Nobody has ever passed a bill that keeps someone from “affording” life saving drugs. You’re clearly a Chinese or Russian disinformation account because all you do is push asinine propaganda.


The gop almost never passes any bills that support child care after birth.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Nobody has ever passed a bill that keeps someone from “affording” life saving drugs. You’re clearly a Chinese or Russian disinformation account because all you do is push asinine propaganda.


BTW, if I were Russian, you and Trump would  be falling all over yourselves taking my advice…..as usual.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Idiot. Judges decide sentences, not  politicians. .


Bwahahaha!! Man you are so damn dumb. Politicians decide penal codes. Judges merely rule based on the range of said code (ie if murder carries a 25 to life sentence, the Judge will rule in that range decided by politicians).

A judge cannot arbitrarily decide a sentence 🤦‍♂️


Dagosa said:


> Parole boards decide when prisoners are eligible for parole. How many times have you ever actually researched anything and not just listened to Tucker.


Please stop talking now. You’ve absolutely humiliated yourself. You’ve shown the world that you’re ignorant about all of this subject matter.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Judges merely rule based on the range of said code (ie if murder carries a 25 to life sentence, the Judge will rule in that range decided by politicians).


What an ignorant post. It’s the judge that decides the sentence. You just listed a range, 25-life. Now crawl back under a rock and think who decides the sentence form 25 to life. .


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Your ignorance is stunning. Violent crimes like first degree murder are often given life sentences w/o parole. How long have you been living under  the Tucker rock of ignorance.
> “Oftentimes, a violent crime like murder will result in a life sentence without the possibility of parole.”


Says the fucking clown who just posted that “Judges decide penal codes” 

Violent crimes like murder _used_ to carry life sentences. Before you leftist became extremists.

Seventy-six fucking thousand let out early - including violent criminals. You should really tune into Tucker Carlson so you’ll stop being so deeply ignorant. Your master’s have controlled your weak and simple mind so completely, they have you believing that the man providing facts is the “boogeyman”  








						California is releasing 76K inmates early, including violent felons
					

With little notice, California on Saturday is increasing early release credits for 76,000 inmates, including violent and repeat felons, as it further trims the population of what once was the natio…




					ktla.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> What an ignorant post. It’s the judge that decides the sentence. You just listed a range, 25-life. Now crawl back under a rock and think who decides the sentence form 25 to life. .


You doubled-down after being humiliated 

Penal codes dictate the range, dumb ass. The Judge gets to decide only within that range.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Since you’re so deeply uneducated, we made a very simple graphic for you. We’re not in favor of government “controlling a person’s body”. We’re in favor of government stopping fascists such as yourself from taking the life of someone else.
> 
> View attachment 646736


So you’re anti woman.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Says the fucking clown who just posted that “Judges decide penal codes”
> 
> Violent crimes like murder _used_ to carry life sentences. Before you leftist became extremists.
> 
> Seventy-six fucking thousand let out early - including violent criminals. You should really tune into Tucker Carlson so you’ll stop being so deeply ignorant. Your master’s have controlled your weak and simple mind so completely, they have you believing that the man providing facts is the “boogeyman”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is releasing 76K inmates early, including violent felons
> 
> 
> With little notice, California on Saturday is increasing early release credits for 76,000 inmates, including violent and repeat felons, as it further trims the population of what once was the natio…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ktla.com


No one cares about your rant.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Idiot. Judges decide sentences, not  politicians.


Furthermore, Judges are politicians, you fucking high school dropout. They are public servants who run for office and get elected or voted out. 🤣 

Seriously man, your ignorance is _astounding_. Truly astounding.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> You doubled-down after being humiliated
> 
> Penal codes dictate the range, dumb ass. The Judge gets to decide only within that range.


Right. The judge decides the sentence. You’re slowly getting there dufus.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> No one cares about your rant.


That’s the response of someone who realizes they were exposed as ignorant


----------



## toobfreak

P@triot said:


> California embodies left-wing misery​California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States.



I say we give them all the leftwing misery they can stand.  We need to pump it up to the max in time for Nov. 8.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The gop almost never passes any bills that support child care after birth.


That’s because they don’t need to. Everything a child would _ever_ need after birth was written into the US Constitution 246 years ago.

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Press
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Right to be Secure in your Persons and Effects

And so on and so on and so on.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The gop almost never passes any bills that support child care after birth.


By the way, you just admitted you lied. Not passing bills to give you something is *not* the same as passing bills making it impossible for you to afford something.

Like all on the left, all you do is lie and push propaganda.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> So you’re anti woman.


So you’re pro-propaganda once you’ve been defeated with facts and science.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Right. The judge decides the sentence. You’re slowly getting there dufus.


If the Judge could decide the sentence, he could give a murderer 24 hours in prison and a life sentence to someone for stealing a pack of gum.

But a judge can’t do that - because politicians decide penal codes, you low-IQ imbecile


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Furthermore, Judges are politicians, you fucking high school dropout. They are public servants who run for office and get elected or voted out. 🤣
> 
> Seriously man, your ignorance is _astounding_. Truly astounding.


Another dumbass. Judges are appointed, they aren’t elected.


P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! Man you are so damn dumb. Politicians decide penal codes. Judges merely rule based on the range of said code (ie if murder carries a 25 to life sentence, the Judge will rule in that range decided by politicians).
> 
> A judge cannot arbitrarily decide a sentence 🤦‍♂️
> 
> Please stop talking now. You’ve absolutely humiliated yourself. You’ve shown the world that you’re ignorant about all of this subject matter.


you obviously have nothing to add. You’ve been proven wrong again.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> So you’re pro-propaganda once you’ve been defeated with facts and science.


YOU ARE ANTI WOMAN. The  child  bearing woman makes the decision. . We have roe v Wade because anyone one else trying to make the decision is unacceptable. YOU can’t tell a woman what to do with here own body in this case. In states where Roe v Wade is overturned, it will be a zoo. Conservatives will lose elections because of this violation of woman’s rights.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> By the way, you just admitted you lied. Not passing bills to give you something is *not* the same as passing bills making it impossible for you to afford something.
> 
> Like all on the left, all you do is lie and push propaganda.


More made up shit.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Another dumbass. Judges are appointed, they aren’t elected.


Bwahahaha!!! Federal judges are appointed ass-hat - and they don’t hear criminal cases.

Your local DA is elected and the judge who he brings cases before is _elected_.

You really are so ignorant, that it’s breathtaking.


----------



## Dagosa

Dagosa said:


> Another dumbass. Judges are appointed, they aren’t elected.
> 
> you obviously have nothing to add. You’ve been proven wrong again.


Dumbass 
. Federal judges hear federal crimes. Until 1832 all judges were appointed. The majority of judges are appointed, not elected.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> YOU ARE ANTI WOMAN.


This is the new version of “your racist if you don’t adopt the left’s totalitarian ideology”  


Dagosa said:


> The  child  bearing woman makes the decision. .


You don’t get to “decide” to commit murder, you low-IQ imbecile


Dagosa said:


> We have roe v Wade because anyone one else trying to make the decision is unacceptable.


We don’t have Roe v Wade anymore, snowflake 🤣  The Supreme Court just overturned that Nazi genocidal nonsense!!


Dagosa said:


> YOU can’t tell a woman what to do with here own body in this case.


It’s not her body and science can prove that. DNA take from a fetus in the womb shows:

It is a human being
It is not part of the mother, but a separate and unique human
Stop denying science, you low-IQ imbecile


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!!! Federal judges are appointed ass-hat - and they don’t hear criminal cases.
> 
> Your local DA is elected and the judge who he brings cases before is _elected_.
> 
> You really are so ignorant, that it’s breathtaking.
> 
> View attachment 647428


Federal judges hear federal. D8mes. That some judges are elected is an exception adopted since the constitution was founded. The vast majority of ALL JUDGES ARE APPOINTED.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Federal judges hear federal crimes.


Yep…and federal judges make up a fraction of all judges across the US.

You’re so dumb, it’s literally breathtaking. Not even sure how it’s possible to live on the US and not know that the judges where you live are *elected*. Their fucking campaign commercials run constantly each election cycle.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The vast majority of ALL JUDGES ARE APPOINTED.


Bwahahaha!! A fraction of all judges are appointed, you fucking high school dropout.

And those appointed are often hearing lower court challenges, almost never ruling on sentencing for criminal cases 🤣


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> This is the new version of “your racist if you don’t adopt the left’s totalitarian ideology”
> 
> You don’t get to “decide” to commit murder, you low-IQ imbecile
> 
> We don’t have Roe v Wade anymore, snowflake 🤣  The Supreme Court just overturned that Nazi genocidal nonsense!!
> 
> It’s not her body and science can prove that. DNA take from a fetus in the womb shows:
> 
> It is a human being
> It is not part of the mother, but a separate and unique human
> Stop denying science, you low-IQ imbecile
> 
> View attachment 647429


You’re still anti woman. Whether to full term is NOT  YOUR DECISION. How stupid are you ? You can’t tell a woman what to do with her body. Are you prepared to charge a woman with murder  Whose birth will jeopardize here life, is a cicf8m of rape or is 12 years old when she is raped. You’re recoltingly wrong.  We went through this for decades before Roe V Wade. Young girls were butchered trying to resolve their pregnancy when they were made pregnant against their will and had their health in jeopardy 

YOU ARE ANTI WOMAN. 
.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Judges are appointed, they aren’t elected.


Well, well, well…would you look at that. Local and state judges listed on Ballotpedia 🤣 




__





						Elections
					






					ballotpedia.org


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Yep…and federal judges make up a fraction of all judges across the US.
> 
> You’re so dumb, it’s literally breathtaking. Not even sure how it’s possible to live on the US and not know that the judges where you live are *elected*. Their fucking campaign commercials run constantly each election cycle.


The judges here are a
pointed dufus.

Mainly in southern backward  states like Mississippi are they elected


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Well, well, well…would you look at that. Local and state judges listed on Ballotpedia 🤣
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elections
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ballotpedia.org


Wow, more made up shit. You claimed all judges were elected. Now you’re hedging.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You’re still anti woman.


Proving you wrong doesn’t make me “anti-woman”. It makes you ignorant.


Dagosa said:


> Whether to full term is NOT  YOUR DECISION.


The fuck it isn’t. 🤣 

It take two to make a baby, stupid
The Supreme Court just said it is my decision!



Dagosa said:


> You can’t tell a woman what to do with her body.


And we’re not. We could give a fuck what someone does with their own body. The baby is *not* _their_ body.


Dagosa said:


> Are you prepared to charge a woman with murder


Abso-fucking-lutely!


Dagosa said:


> We went through this for decades before Roe V Wade.


Yep, and now we’re correcting that mistake. History will look at you baby murdering thugs with the same contempt and disgusting that we do the Jew murdering Nazis.


Dagosa said:


> Young girls were butchered trying to resolve their pregnancy


Good. They deserve it for being so fucking ignorant. A pregnancy is not something to “resolve”. It’s something to celebrate.


Dagosa said:


> YOU ARE ANTI WOMAN.


You are pro-propaganda and anti-informed


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> If the Judge could decide the sentence, he could give a murderer 24 hours in prison and a life sentence to someone for stealing a pack of gum.
> 
> But a judge can’t do that - because politicians decide penal codes, you low-IQ imbecile


How ignorant are you. You just gave a range of 25-life and then said the judge decides the sentence. Hilarious. The judge decides the sentence.


----------



## P@triot

Uh-oh!! Looks like someone is already trying to weasel out of their ignorant comments. First you said “judges are appointed”:


Dagosa said:


> Judges are appointed, they aren’t elected.


After I exposed your ignorance there and humiliated you, now you’re trying to backpedal


Dagosa said:


> Mainly in southern backward  states like Mississippi are they elected


No snowflake. Every local judge is elected. 🤣


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Proving you wrong doesn’t make me “anti-woman”. It makes you ignorant.
> 
> The fuck it isn’t. 🤣
> 
> It take two to make a baby, stupid
> The Supreme Court just said it is my decision!
> 
> And we’re not. We could give a fuck what someone does with their own body. The baby is *not* _their_ body.
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely!
> 
> Yep, and now we’re correcting that mistake. History will look at you baby murdering thugs with the same contempt and disgusting that we do the Jew murdering Nazis.
> 
> Good. They deserve it for being so fucking ignorant. A pregnancy is not something to “resolve”. It’s something to celebrate.
> 
> You are pro-propaganda and anti-informed


Your anti woman. You don’t trust woman to save their own lives when their health is at risk, babies are severely deformed or won’t even survive the birth. There are underaged Girls who are raped and may not even survive the birth themselves, and you want them to die. You’re anti woman.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Uh-oh!! Looks like someone is already trying to weasel out of their ignorant comments. First you said “judges are appointed”:
> 
> After I exposed your ignorance there and humiliated you, now you’re trying to backpedal
> 
> No snowflake. Every local judge is elected. 🤣


Local judge ? Really ? That’s a new one.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The judge decides the sentence.


So a judge can give a life sentence for the first time offense of stealing a pack of gum? Yes or No?


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> You’re still anti woman. Whether to full term is NOT  YOUR DECISION. How stupid are you ? You can’t tell a woman what to do with her body. Are you prepared to charge a woman with murder  Whose birth will jeopardize here life, is a cicf8m of rape or is 12 years old when she is raped. You’re recoltingly wrong.  We went through this for decades before Roe V Wade. Young girls were butchered trying to resolve their pregnancy when they were made pregnant against their will and had their health in jeopardy
> 
> YOU ARE ANTI WOMAN.
> .


How many times do you ignorant liars need to be told that the fetus is a totally separate human being.  You're sick.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Local judge ? Really ? That’s a new one.


It’s really not. They’ve existed since the US was founded. More illustration of your profound ignorance.

For fucks sake man, taking a civics course at a local community college. I’ll even pay for it. Or at the very least, turn on Tucker Carlson for once.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Your anti woman. You don’t trust woman to save their own lives when their health is at risk, babies are severely deformed or won’t even survive the birth. There are underaged Girls who are raped and may not even survive the birth themselves, and you want them to die. You’re anti woman.


Your anti-woman. You’re so threatened by women, you want them slaughtered in the womb so you won’t have to deal with them in life.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> So a judge can give a life sentence for the first time offense of stealing a pack of gum? Yes or No?


That’s stupid.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The judges here are *a
> pointed* dufus.


“A pointed”  

It’s “_appointed_” ya high school dropout.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Your anti-woman. You’re so threatened by women, you want them slaughtered in the womb so you won’t have to deal with them in life.


Huh ? That’s a dumb statement. By definition, they is no woman in a womb. It’s a fetus.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> “A pointed”
> 
> It’s “_appointed_” ya high school dropout.


That’s “You” not “ya“ elementary school drop out.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> That’s stupid.


Hahahahahahaha!! So Judges don’t really “decide the sentence” after all, uh snowflake? They are bound by the penal codes chosen by elected politicians.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? That’s a dumb statement. By definition, they is no woman in a womb. It’s a fetus.


Again, DNA taken from the baby in the womb proves:

It’s a human
It’s a unique and separate life
It’s male or female
Like all on the left, you continue to deny science.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? That’s a dumb statement. By definition, they is no woman in a womb. It’s a fetus.


And the fetus is a separate human being.  Stop your damn lying about abortion being about the mother's body.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hahahahahahaha!! So Judges don’t really “decide the sentence” after all, uh snowflake? They are bound by the penal codes chosen by elected politicians.


What a dufus. If the penal. If the penal code decided the sentence there would be no need for a judge at the sentencing sumbass.

You seem to be struggling with who actually does the sentencing. Name some cases where a judge did not decree the final sentence at a sentencing hearing.


----------



## P@triot

The Democrats have embraced extremism. It’s good to see the church pushing back against these extremists!! And in California of all places!








						BREAKING: San Francisco archbishop bars Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Holy Communion
					

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been barred from receiving Holy Communion in the Archdiocese of San Francisco because of her increasingly "extreme" position on abortion, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone announced Friday. In a "letter to the faithful," the archbishop wrote that after...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> What a dufus. If the penal. If the penal code decided the sentence there would be no need for a judge at the sentencing sumbass.
> 
> You seem to be struggling with who actually does the sentencing. Name some cases where a judge did not decree the final sentence at a sentencing hearing.


So you are once again claiming that a Judge can give life for the first time offense of stealing a pack of gum? 🤣


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Again, DNA taken from the baby in the womb proves:
> 
> It’s a human
> It’s a unique and separate life
> It’s male or female
> Like all on the left, you continue to deny science.


That was wasted post. It doesn’t matter. It’s the woman who carry’s the fetus who makes that DECISION. You don’t believe woman should make that decision. You’re against  woman. It’s not the gov., it’s not you you, it’s not me. It’s the WOMAN who bears the  fetus who decides.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> That was wasted post. It doesn’t matter. It’s the woman who carry’s the fetus who makes that DECISION. You don’t believe woman should make that decision. You’re against  woman. It’s not the gov., it’s not you you, it’s not me. It’s the WOMAN who bears the  fetus who decides.


And she needs to know what the truth is.  Her fetus is a living human, not her body.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Every member of the Democrat Party


Boring BS.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Coming from the person who calls the murder of babies “healthcare”


It's not murder.

And it is healthcare, but to you it represents control like that Taliban.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> And killing a baby _is_ murder, idiot.
> 
> By the way, don’t call others an “idiot” when you’re so fucking uneducated, you fail to place a comma after suicide.


Terminating a zygote is not murder. Choosing family size is the choice of the mother and who she chooses in that decision.

It's not yours.


----------



## otto105

Papageorgio said:


> So you are against mandatory vaccines in children If the parent’s refuse?


How is that the same thing?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dagosa said:


> Your ignorance is stunning. Violent crimes like first degree murder are often given life sentences w/o parole. How long have you been living under  the Tucker rock of ignorance.
> “Oftentimes, a violent crime like murder will result in a life sentence without the possibility of parole.”



Which then results in parole anyway..

Charles Manson was sentenced to death, then the sentence was commuted to Life without the possibility of parole. Charlie died just before his 27th parole hearing.

Sounds an awful lot like 26 possibilities for the most heinous killer in California history.

See, you fascists LIE, about EVERYTHING.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dagosa said:


> The gop almost never passes any bills that support child care after birth.



Fucking liar.


----------



## j-mac

Dagosa said:


> That was wasted post. It doesn’t matter. It’s the woman who carry’s the fetus who makes that DECISION. You don’t believe woman should make that decision. You’re against  woman. It’s not the gov., it’s not you you, it’s not me. It’s the WOMAN who bears the  fetus who decides.


"
Discrimination? Microaggression? Propaganda? These are common labels against pro-lifers. Anyone arguing for the rights of the unborn can expect to be characterized as enemies of women, of liberty, and of human rights. Sometimes we can learn from these accusations and pick better terms or listen with more charity. Other times, these labels just don’t fit. Or worse, they are baseless slander.

I would like to suggest that the abortion debate is riddled with a problematic term: “fetus.” At best, this term is a harmless shorthand way to refer to a “human fetus,” “fetal human,” or the “child-in-utero,” and other non-discriminatory terms. At worst, and it’s often used this way, it’s a misleading rhetorical move designed to instill dehumanizing prejudice against the unborn. Either way, we can do better.

Some may call the term “fetus” a “microaggression,” although I’m not a big fan of that concept.[1] My grievance with this term is that it’s typically a subtle but deliberate spin in verbiage intended to relocate the discussion away from any possible implication of _human_ rights. The net effect of that rhetoric, if left unchecked, is a dehumanizing prejudgment about the status of the unborn, as if this “fetus” isn’t _really_ a human being. This use of terms can even be a kind of discrimination. It isn’t discrimination in the sense of breaking a law or violating someone’s civil rights. But it does qualify as verbal discrimination because it is dehumanizing and prejudicial language."









						What's Wrong with Saying "Fetus"
					

The term "fetus" is typically a subtle but deliberate spin in verbiage intended to relocate the discussion away from any possible implication of human rights. The net effect of that rhetoric, if left unchecked, is a dehumanizing prejudgment about the status of the unborn, as if this “fetus”...




					blog.equalrightsinstitute.com


----------



## j-mac

otto105 said:


> Terminating a zygote is not murder. Choosing family size is the choice of the mother and who she chooses in that decision.
> 
> It's not yours.


Again, using terms like "zygote" is a pathetic attempt to dehumanize the unborn, and is the only way you can justify the killing of that unborn human baby in the womb.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dagosa said:


> YOU ARE ANTI WOMAN.



Damn, so P@triot is trying to have men replace women?

What is it you Nazi fucks say? The only good woman is a man?












Dagosa said:


> The  child  bearing woman makes the decision. . We have roe v Wade because anyone one else trying to make the decision is unacceptable.



We have Roe v Wade because congress could not pass such a law, so a corrupt SCOTUS crafted law in defiance of the Constitution 



Dagosa said:


> YOU can’t tell a woman what to do with here own body in this case. In states where Roe v Wade is overturned, it will be a zoo. Conservatives will lose elections because of this violation of woman’s rights.



LOL

The law created by the Burger court is being overturned. That is a national level decision. You really are quite ignorant. The judiciary has no authority to create law so a legitimate court is throwing the illegal and unconstitutional law out. NO state will still have Roe, you drooling retard. All states will have the constitutionally guaranteed power to craft law as seen fit by the citizens of that state.

Meanwhile, you Nazi fucks will continue your war against women.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> And she needs to know what the truth is.  Her fetus is a living human, not her body.


Huh ? Her body isn’t living ?


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> How many times do you ignorant liars need to be told that the fetus is a totally separate human being.  You're sick.


You’re ignorant. Not only that, but you’re anti woman.


----------



## Dagosa

j-mac said:


> Again, using terms like "zygote" is a pathetic attempt to dehumanize the unborn, and is the only way you can justify the killing of that unborn human baby in the womb.


So you're smarter then medical science ? You don’t even use the medical terms. You a pediatrician or a buffoon ? What are you going to do ? Lock  up every pregnant woman so if any exercise too strenuously or fall down during pregnancy and abort you can charge them with second degree murder ? All you people who want to deny a woman’s right to her own body decisions are idiots. It’s really about the poor.wealthier hypocrites will just go out of state and have an abortion when her health is in danger……you’ll just let poor women  die.


----------



## Dagosa

j-mac said:


> "
> Discrimination? Microaggression? Propaganda? These are common labels against pro-lifers. Anyone arguing for the rights of the unborn can expect to be characterized as enemies of women, of liberty, and of human rights. Sometimes we can learn from these accusations and pick better terms or listen with more charity. Other times, these labels just don’t fit. Or worse, they are baseless slander.
> 
> I would like to suggest that the abortion debate is riddled with a problematic term: “fetus.” At best, this term is a harmless shorthand way to refer to a “human fetus,” “fetal human,” or the “child-in-utero,” and other non-discriminatory terms. At worst, and it’s often used this way, it’s a misleading rhetorical move designed to instill dehumanizing prejudice against the unborn. Either way, we can do better.
> 
> Some may call the term “fetus” a “microaggression,” although I’m not a big fan of that concept.[1] My grievance with this term is that it’s typically a subtle but deliberate spin in verbiage intended to relocate the discussion away from any possible implication of _human_ rights. The net effect of that rhetoric, if left unchecked, is a dehumanizing prejudgment about the status of the unborn, as if this “fetus” isn’t _really_ a human being. This use of terms can even be a kind of discrimination. It isn’t discrimination in the sense of breaking a law or violating someone’s civil rights. But it does qualify as verbal discrimination because it is dehumanizing and prejudicial language."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's Wrong with Saying "Fetus"
> 
> 
> The term "fetus" is typically a subtle but deliberate spin in verbiage intended to relocate the discussion away from any possible implication of human rights. The net effect of that rhetoric, if left unchecked, is a dehumanizing prejudgment about the status of the unborn, as if this “fetus”...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blog.equalrightsinstitute.com


Make it short. Your post is boring.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? Her body isn’t living ?


The fetus isn't her body.  Gonna play dumb now, huh.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hahahahahahaha!! So Judges don’t really “decide the sentence” after all, uh snowflake? They are bound by the penal codes chosen by elected politicians.


Wow. You can post emojis. That makes you a real winner., in your own mind.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> The fetus isn't her body.  Gonna play dumb now, huh.


You really are dumb when it comes to medical science. The fetus is dependent upon the woman’s body for life. It’s her decision whether or not to be the host. Any other POV is a dead end filled with contradictions.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> You’re ignorant. Not only that, but you’re anti woman.


Prove me wrong, dick nose.  When a woman is pregnant, she has a separate human life living inside her.  Go ahead, prove me wrong, you fucking retarded goat.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> You really are dumb when it comes to medical science.


Says you, idiotic cocksucker.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> You really are dumb when it comes to medical science. The fetus is dependent upon the woman’s body for life. It’s her decision whether or not to be the host. Any other POV is a dead end filled with contradictions.


Is the fetus a separate human being?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Your anti-woman. You’re so threatened by women, you want them slaughtered in the womb so you won’t have to deal with them in life.


You’re taking away a woman’s right to choose, not me. I never remember saying that I performed abortions, you idiot.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Says you, idiotic cocksucker.


I guess you have to be one to use the term.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> I guess you have to be one to use the term.


Is the fetus a separate human being?


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> You’re taking away a woman’s right to choose, not me. I never remember saying that I performed abortions, you idiot.


It's not a right.  It's either legal or illegal.  You don't understand the Constitution.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> It's not a right.  It's either legal or illegal.  You don't understand the Constitution.


Either a woman has the right  to control her own body, or she doesn’t. Guess you don’t understand the constitution. Maybe, you’ll take away their right to vote next.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Either a woman has thevright to control her own body, or she doesn’t. Guess you don’t understand the constitution. Maybe, you’ll take away their right to vote next.


You skipped a post, asshole.  Answer #2207.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Either a woman has the right  to control her own body, or she doesn’t. Guess you don’t understand the constitution. Maybe, you’ll take away their right to vote next.


If she gets pregnant without wanting to get pregnant, then she doesn't really have control of her own body in the first place, dip shit.  Nap time for you.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> If she gets pregnant without wanting to get pregnant, then she doesn't really have control of her own body in the first place, dip shit.  Nap time for you.


Like rape victims, including young girls and a plethora of other conditions that you would force women to lose their right to choose. You’re a beauty. You want govt control over women’s bodies. I hope this post gets into the next election  cycle.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Is the fetus a separate human being?


Why don’t you look up what a fetus is before you pretend you know shit.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Like rape victims, including young girls and a plethora of other conditions that you would force women to lose their right to choose. You’re a beauty. You want govt control over women’s bodies. I hope this post gets into the next election  cycle.


How many women get pregnant from rape every year?


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Why don’t you look up what a fetus is before you pretend you know shit.


A fetus is a human being.  Right or wrong?


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> It's not a right.  It's either legal or illegal.  You don't understand the Constitution.


You’re ignorance is stunning. You’re denying the fundamental right of a woman to choose her life over that of another. If the baby endangers her well being, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy at any time.  Just because you choose to call a fetus “ innocent” has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose her own well being over that of another. It’s no different then you choosing NOT to save an innocent child drowning in a raging river because you cannot see yourself surviving or even putting yourself at risk of bodily harm. How many pregnancies have you gone through ? . The right to choose is the woman’s and hers alone.

Now, you’re prepared to call that choice “ murder” ? That’s ignorant.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> How many women get pregnant from rape every year?


Does it matter ? There were 126,000 rape cases reported. These woman till now we’re free to make a choice and have a pregnancy test. Then they we’re free to choose. Now you‘re forcing women to do what ? Have a pregnancy test then no choice ? You’re ignorant. Until you get raped yourself whether you’re a man or  a woman, you have no fking idea what you’re  talking about. You’ve just lost another right.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> You’re ignorance is stunning. You’re denying the fundamental right of a woman to choose her life over that of another. If the baby endangers her well being, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy at any time.  Just because you choose to call a fetus “ innocent” has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose her own well being over that of another. It’s no different then you choosing NOT to save an innocent child drowning in a raging river because you cannot see yourself surviving or even putting yourself at risk of bodily harm. How many pregnancies have you gone through ? . The right to choose is the woman’s and hers alone.
> 
> Now, you’re prepared to call that choice “ murder” ? That’s ignorant.


You don't understand what a Constitutional right is.  No where in the Constitution is abortion said to be a "right".  Abortion was legalized by the Federal government.  If something is legalized, it can also be made illegal.  Do you understand that?


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> How many women get pregnant from rape every year?


The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101.

Now take 5% of 126,000. Need help ?


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Does it matter ? There were 126,000 rape cases reported. These woman till now we’re free to make a choice and have a pregnancy test. Then they we’re free to choose. Now you‘re forcing women to do what ? Have a pregnancy test then no choice ? You’re ignorant. Until you get raped yourself whether you’re a man or  a woman, you have no fking idea what you’re  talking about. You’ve just lost another right.


Show the post where I said a woman had to birth her child from a rape.  Go ahead.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101.
> 
> Now take 5% of 126,000. Need help ?


Link.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> You don't understand what a Constitutional right is.  No where in the Constitution is abortion said to be a "right".  Abortion was legalized by the Federal government.  If something is legalized, it can also be made illegal.  Do you understand that?


you are ignorant of how the constitution works aren’t you ? Roe v Wade is a decision by the SC and has been supported many times. You want to know how the constitution supports it ? Read the decisions of Roe v Wade and the subsequent rulings. They are there.
.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Show the post where I said a woman had to birth her child from a rape.  Go ahead.


So you’re in favor if abortion ? So much for all those fake posts you just made.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> you are ignorant of how the constitution works aren’t you ? Roe v Wade is a decision by the SC and has been supported many times. You want to know how the constitution supports it ? Read the decisions of Roe v Wade and the subsequent rulings. They are there.
> .


Correct.  Some Justices believed that the Constitution supports abortion.  Now we have some Justices that believe it doesn't and will let the states decide.  That's how the Constitution works.  The Constitution says whatever at least 5 Justices say.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> So you’re in favor if abortion ? So much for all those fake posts you just made.


No, I'm not in favor of abortion.  You really aren't very smart.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> No, I'm not in favor of abortion.  You really aren't very smart.


I have no idea where you stand with your un thought out rants about abortion.  So you would have the law  require the rape victim to bear a child or be prosecuted for a crime if she didn’t  ?


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Correct.  Some Justices believed that the Constitution supports abortion.  Now we have some Justices that believe it doesn't and will let the states decide.  That's how the Constitution works.  The Constitution says whatever at least 5 Justices say.


You don’t have to wonder what the constitution says. We have a SC that makes those decisions. Read them.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> No, I'm not in favor of abortion.  You really aren't very smart.


You’re not in favor of a woman’s right to CHOOSE to have an abortion ? What you believe  is immaterial except for yourself. That’s your choice if you’re a woman, and not if you’re a man.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> You’re not in favor of a woman’s right to CHOOSE to have an abortion ? What you believe  is immaterial except for yourself. That’s your choice if you’re a woman, and not if you’re a man.


I think someone who has a partial birth abortion should be hung...................that's me being polite.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Link.


Type the phrase. The phrase link will come up. It’s magic.


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> I think someone who has a partial birth abortion should be hung...................that's me being polite.


Partial birth abortions were banned in 2003…you’re late..


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> Thats the decision of the woman and her doctor. If the woman is likely to die, ask her then.


Let me repeat............those getting a partial birth abortion should be hung............did I stutter when I typed..................nope


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> Let me repeat............those getting a partial birth abortion should be hung............did I stutter when I typed..................nope


Partial birth abortions were banned in 2003. Immaterial.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> Partial birth abortions were banned in 2003. Immaterial.


BS.  In blue shit holes they still do it.  They have NO ABORTION LAWS AT ALL Dimwit.


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> BS.  In blue shit holes they still do it.  They have NO ABORTION LAWS AT ALL Dimwit.


Sure, you and Tucker have all the hospital records. You think red states don‘t perform abortions ? Gee, even the inbred white trailer  trash conservatives get tired of breeding cross eyed offspring from date’n * their cousins


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> Sure, you and Tucker have all the hospital records. You think red states don‘t perform abortions ? Gee, even the inbred white trailer  trash conservatives get tired of breeding cross eyed offspring from date’n * their cousins


We have laws here against late term abortion already........which is allowed under Roe V Wade.

But you barbaric fuckers don't.............Some of your lunatics say to abort after birth.


----------



## eagle1462010

More videos of your lunatics


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? Her body isn’t living ?



Retard Ghoul, does the baby inside a pregnant woman have the same blood type as the mother? If not, what does that tell you? Will a DNA test show the baby is an organ of the mother?

You demand the right to kill others - decent people say "no."


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> We have laws here against late term abortion already........which is allowed under Roe V Wade.
> 
> But you barbaric fuckers don't.............Some of your lunatics say to abort after birth.


Wow…it was only a matter of time. Trump should be aborted  NOW.
Late term abortions haven’t been legal since 2003. Is that hard to understand ?


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Correct. Some Justices believed that the Constitution supports abortion.


That’s kind of silly. Abortion is a fact of life. It happens naturally, artificially, legally and illegally. It will continue to happen regardless of what the court does. Roe v Wade allowed women the right to choose to do it legally.

Informed people will continue support a woman’s right to choose, while the ignorant will  rant and rave and have nothing to say that makes sense.,


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> I have no idea where you stand with your un thought out rants about abortion.  So you would have the law  require the rape victim to bear a child or be prosecuted for a crime if she didn’t  ?


Nope.  Never said that.  Why do you always assume?  Why don't you ask me what my position is on abortion.


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> That’s kind of silly. Abortion is a fact of life. It happens naturally, artificially, legally and illegally. It will continue to happen regardless of what the court does. Roe v Wade allowed women the right to choose to do it legally.
> 
> Informed people will continue support a woman’s right to choose, while the ignorant will  rant and rave and have nothing to say that makes sense.,


Death is a fact of life. It happens naturally.  Let's get rid of all the murder and manslaughter laws.  Okay?


----------



## BS Filter

Dagosa said:


> Type the phrase. The phrase link will come up. It’s magic.


You're about to lose me. Going on ignore, you stupid cocksucker.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> You're about to lose me. Going on ignore, you stupid cocksucker.


Get lost dufus.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Death is a fact of life. It happens naturally.  Let's get rid of all the murder and manslaughter laws.  Okay?


Bozo.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Nope.  Never said that.  Why do you always assume?  Why don't you ask me what my position is on abortion.


Backed into a corner. You can’t say what a rape victim should be able to do, but you’re sure against choice. What a totally uninformed bozo.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Wow. You can post emojis. That makes you a real winner., in your own mind.


Wow, you don’t have the first clue how your own government functions. But for some reason, that doesn’t stop you from commenting on everything.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Backed into a corner. You can’t say what a rape victim should be able to do, but you’re sure against choice. What a totally uninformed bozo.


Backed into a corner. You have to point to the 0.000001% extreme situation to support your ignorant and extreme position. What a total jack-ass.

Are you ready for _this_, jack-ass? A rape victim can take the “morning after pill” which ensures no pregnancy before science can even determine if a woman is pregnant.

Abortion: outlawed!! Problem: _solved_.

Now what, jack-ass?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Huh ? Her body isn’t living ?


Since you’re not very bright, we made a very simple graphic for you…


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Make it short.


The limited intellect of the left perfectly summarized. They lack the intelligence for anything of _substance_. It’s why the Dumbocrat Party has such an easy time controlling all of them.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> All you people who want to deny a woman’s right to her own body decisions are idiots.


Again, science can prove it is *not* _her_ body. Here is a simple graphic to help you understand, since basic science makes your head hurt.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> How is that the same thing?


Because you’re all about “the right to choose”, _right_?!?


----------



## j-mac

Dagosa said:


> So you're smarter then medical science ? You don’t even use the medical terms. You a pediatrician or a buffoon ? What are you going to do ? Lock  up every pregnant woman so if any exercise too strenuously or fall down during pregnancy and abort you can charge them with second degree murder ? All you people who want to deny a woman’s right to her own body decisions are idiots. It’s really about the poor.wealthier hypocrites will just go out of state and have an abortion when her health is in danger……you’ll just let poor women  die.


At what point do you consider elective abortion to be wrong?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You’re taking away a woman’s right to choose, not me.


There is *no* “right” to choose to take a life. It simply doesn’t exist. Never has. Never will.


Dagosa said:


> I never remember saying that I performed abortions, you idiot.


I never remember saying I prevented abortions, you idiot.

Bwahahaha!! See how fuck’n stupid you sound? If I’m “anti-woman” for being against abortion (despite never personally having prevented one), then you are definitely “anti-woman” for wanting millions of women terminated (despite never personally performing one).

Why are you so dumb? For real. Serious question.


----------



## Dagosa

j-mac said:


> At what point do you consider elective abortion to be wrong?


So now, it’s “elective abortion.”

The women’s choice crowd is falling all over themselves trying to be understood.


----------



## Ame®icano

eagle1462010 said:


> Killing over 63 million unborn babies.......with no remorse...........and somehow thinking you are Righteous.
> 
> And many doing it ARE PROUD OF IT.
> 
> Genocidal maniacs.



They're on the pace to surpass Chinese commies killing rates. Same ilk.


----------



## j-mac

Dagosa said:


> So now, it’s “elective abortion.”
> 
> The women’s choice crowd is falling all over themselves trying to be understood.


So, answer the question


----------



## P@triot

The left has turned California into a third-world shit-hole.








						Who Wants to Follow California? | PragerU
					

As goes California, so goes the nation. This used to be said as a compliment. Now it’s a cautionary tale, and the country would be wise to heed it. Political…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Backed into a corner. You have to point to the 0.000001% extreme situation to support your ignorant and extreme position. What a total jack-ass.
> 
> Are you ready for _this_, jack-ass? A rape victim can take the “morning after pill” which ensures no pregnancy before science can even determine if a woman is pregnant.
> 
> Abortion: outlawed!! Problem: _solved_.
> 
> Now what, jack-ass?


A morning after pill is chemical abortion, Dufus. You’re now proposing abortion. Maybe be you didn’t know, but the majority of legal abortions ARE done by drugs ALREADY. so now you support abortion.

And you have no response for rape victims do you. There are 126.000 reported rape victims with 5% becoming impregnated. How many of these victims will even report they were raped if they knew they would be indicted for murder if they chose not to bring the child of their rape to term. That’s 6300 victims  that face a state crime of murder. So now, you’re sugesting that under many states laws proposed, they just have a drug that induces chemical abortion......just in case. Wow. That’s a turn around.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> A morning after pill is chemical abortion, Dufus.


Well considering it is 100% *impossible* to know if a woman is pregnant 24 hours after intercourse, you sound like an imbecile. In 99.999% of the cases, the pill will be taken for no reason at all. Only in those ultra rare situations where a rape actually results in a pregnancy would it stop the pregnancy.

So as I previously stated: now what, jack-ass?!?

We’ll concede the “Morning After Pill” in cases of rape. So now you’ve lost your only excuse for supporting baby murder. Now you’ll just have to admit that you’re a disgusting piece of shit and total sociopath.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> And you have no response for rape victims do you.


WTF? My entire post was a “response” for the rape victim 


Dagosa said:


> How many of these victims will even report they were raped if they knew they would be indicted for murder if they chose not to bring the child of their rape to term.


You just typed that idiotic lie in response to a post where I stated “let’s outlaw abortion and permit the Morning After pill in cases of rape”. In other words, they won’t be “indicted for murder” because there won’t be a “murder”. Can’t even tell a woman is pregnant within 24 hours of intercourse.

So for the third time: now what, jack-ass? What excuse do you have for us now?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> WTF? My entire post was a “response” for the rape victim
> 
> You just typed that idiotic lie in response to a post where I stated “let’s outlaw abortion and permit the Morning After pill in cases of rape”. In other words, they won’t be “indicted for murder” because there won’t be a “murder”. Can’t even tell a woman is pregnant within 24 hours of intercourse.
> 
> So for the third time: now what, jack-ass? What excuse do you have for us now?


You fraud. The morning after pill is chemical abortion inducing medication. The vast majority of pro lifers are against the morning after pill.....which is not  as effective.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Well considering it is 100% *impossible* to know if a woman is pregnant 24 hours after intercourse, you sound like an imbecile. In 99.999% of the cases, the pill will be taken for no reason at all. Only in those ultra rare situations where a rape actually results in a pregnancy would it stop the pregnancy.
> 
> So as I previously stated: now what, jack-ass?!?
> 
> We’ll concede the “Morning After Pill” in cases of rape. So now you’ve lost your only excuse for supporting baby murder. Now you’ll just have to admit that you’re a disgusting piece of shit and total sociopath.


So you’re suggesting an abortion, just in case. Your made up shit is  all fucked up. You have no evidence. You’re a medical incompetent. The only ones who should decide are the doctors and victims. You’re the idiot.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> WTF? My entire post was a “response” for the rape victim
> 
> You just typed that idiotic lie in response to a post where I stated “let’s outlaw abortion and permit the Morning After pill in cases of rape”. In other words, they won’t be “indicted for murder” because there won’t be a “murder”. Can’t even tell a woman is pregnant within 24 hours of intercourse.
> 
> So for the third time: now what, jack-ass? What excuse do you have for us now?


More babble. You don’t know shit.


----------



## Dagosa

BS Filter said:


> Nope.  Never said that.  Why do you always assume?  Why don't you ask me what my position is on abortion.


You’re making believe you know more then a doctor. You have a degree somewhere ? The only people who should have a relevant position that matters, are the women involved and their doctor.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> WTF? My entire post was a “response” for the rape victim
> 
> You just typed that idiotic lie in response to a post where I stated “let’s outlaw abortion and permit the Morning After pill in cases of rape”. In other words, they won’t be “indicted for murder” because there won’t be a “murder”. Can’t even tell a woman is pregnant within 24 hours of intercourse.
> 
> So for the third time: now what, jack-ass? What excuse do you have for us now?


I typed a rhetorical question. I’ll repeat it. How likely is woman or female child  going to report a rape if they are going  to have a pregnancy test that will determine a charge if murder if they choose to abort ? It sounds like......
Idiots like you want to punish women and children for being raped.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You fraud. The morning after pill is chemical abortion inducing medication.


It’s not even medically _possible_ to tell that a woman is pregnant within 24 hours. So how the fuck can it be an “abortion” when you don’t even know IF a woman is pregnant? 

You’re just pissed off because now your “rape” nonsense no longer gives you an excuse for murdering defenseless babies.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Your made up shit is  all fucked up. You have no evidence. You’re a medical incompetent.


Bwahahaha!! Someone is frustrated and lashing out now that their “rape” bullshit has been stripped from them.

It’s just a fact that it’s not even _possible_ to detect pregnancy within 24 hours. Can’t be done.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> More babble. You don’t know shit.


Hahahaha! I love how _thoroughly_ *defeated* you are now!


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hahahaha! I love how _thoroughly_ *defeated* you are now!


In your own mind, which is small.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> It’s not even medically _possible_ to tell that a woman is pregnant within 24 hours. So how the fuck can it be an “abortion” when you don’t even know IF a woman is pregnant?
> 
> You’re just pissed off because now your “rape” nonsense no longer gives you an excuse for murdering defenseless babies.


That’s hilarious. It was you Humpers  who suggested the morning after pill. Now you‘re the expert in made up a hit ?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! Someone is frustrated and lashing out now that their “rape” bullshit has been stripped from them.
> 
> It’s just a fact that it’s not even _possible_ to detect pregnancy within 24 hours. Can’t be done.


*You just typed that idiotic lie in response to a post where I stated “let’s outlaw abortion and permit the Morning After pill in cases of rape”.*
Then why did you suggest the morning after pill. It was your idea, and a pretty stupid one at that. You want the govt telling rape victims what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

You don’t  even know how long after a rape most are reported do you ? Your just throwing shit against the wall like most anti   women rights slugs.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hahahaha! I love how _thoroughly_ *defeated* you are now!


Defeated how ? You’re the one who wants the morning after pill dufus. It’s a stupid idea.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Your anti woman.


You’re _truly_ anti-woman. You want women killed in the womb (before they become a “threat” to you in the world) and you want them taking unnecessary medical procedures that can kill them once they are in the world.








						Autopsy Confirms 33-Week Abortion Led to Young Woman's Death - LifeNews.com
					

The Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has released the autopsy report on the death of Jennifer Morbelli, which again confirms the young woman died on February 7, 2013, from complications to a 33-week abortion done by late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart. Jennifer McKenna...



					www.lifenews.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Then why did you suggest the morning after pill.


For the exact same fucking reason I support “_the_ pill”. It’s *preventative*. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Moonglow

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


And the wealthiest state in the union, you left that out. Mississippi is available for you sophisticated elites.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Defeated how ? You’re the one who wants the morning after pill dufus. *It’s a stupid idea.*


The “Morning After Pill” is a “stupid idea”? Did you tell that to pharmaceutical company that patented it? 

It’s not an “idea” clown. It’s an actual solution. But once you accept that solution, you no longer have an *excuse* for why you want to murder defenseless babies. And that says it all.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> That’s hilarious. It was you Humpers  who suggested the morning after pill. Now you‘re the expert in *made up a hit ?*


You’ve come so unglued by your through defeat, you’re not even coherent now!


----------



## HandleTheTruth

Fifth largest economy in the world. Something is working.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> You’ve come so unglued by your through defeat, you’re not even coherent now!


So your life has deteriorated to pretending you have a fallacy win debate  on a forum.

Go check your supply if Depends. I think you wet yourself


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> For the exact same fucking reason I support “_the_ pill”. It’s *preventative*. 🤦‍♂️


Ah, in your ignorance, did you ever think that the morning after pill has to be taken…THE MORNING AFTER.  Geesus,


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> For the exact same fucking reason I support “_the_ pill”. It’s *preventative*. 🤦‍♂️


You’re really anti woman aren’t you. Rapes are under reported and victims are advised to wait till they are in a safe position to report them. Maybe if you actually did some research instead of being anti rape victim, you wouldn’t make so many nebulous comments. But that’s your privy.


----------



## Tax Man

I sure love my California misery. So much better than Nor carlin or any other southern state.


----------



## Dagosa

Tax Man said:


> I sure love my California misery. So much better than Nor carlin or any other southern state.


NC, where actual organized voter fraud was found….committed by republicans.


----------



## P@triot

HandleTheTruth said:


> Fifth largest economy in the world. Something is working.


Only am imbecile would think a state that should be the _largest_ economy in the world by itself is doing something right by being #5.

It’s a massive fuck’n state, on the ocean (means shipping ports/docks, seafood, beachfront property / tourism, etc.) with phenomenal climate (agriculture), endless natural resources (oil, natural gas, etc.), and was even blessed to land a lucrative industry like Hollywood.

If I ran California, it would _easily _top all other 49 states combined.

Instead, it’s a fuck’n shit-hole with *$545 billion* in *debt*.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> I sure love my California misery.


Of course you do. You mooch off of the producers, pay no taxes, and contribute nothing to society. Great deal for you.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> NC, where *actual organized voter fraud was found*….committed by republicans.


Hahahaha! So you admit voter fraud exists and yet you fight _against_ it. Very telling.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Go check your *supply if Depends*. I think you wet yourself


You continue to struggle on even the most basic sentences. You’re incoherent.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Ah, in your ignorance, did you ever think that the morning after pill has to be taken…THE MORNING AFTER.  Geesus,


No shit, stupid. So a woman is raped, she goes to the hospital - a rape kit is conducted, and then she is given the pill.

Seriously man, how fucking stupid are you? I'm asking that seriously. I've seen garden snails that show more intelligence than you have shown in your _entire_ time on USMB.

You're so desperate to kill babies, you are losing your shit over the realization that it's not necessary in the case of rape.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Rapes are under reported and victims are advised to wait till they* are in a safe position to report them*.


Because a rapist usually likes to cuddle and watch Johnny Carson with their victim after the rape, then take them to Hawaii for a week?

Seriously snowflake, I've made you my bitch in this thread with simple solutions based on common sense, and it's caused you to become _completely_ unglued. You sound like a babbling retard right now.


----------



## Tax Man

P@triot said:


> Of course you do. You mooch off of the producers, pay no taxes, and contribute nothing to society. Great deal for you.


So much envy from you that I have retired a wealthy man from all my years of labor. So take your arrogance and shove it.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Because a rapist usually likes to cuddle and watch Johnny Carson with their victim after the rape, then take them to Hawaii for a week?
> 
> Seriously snowflake, I've made you my bitch in this thread with simple solutions based on common sense, and it's caused you to become _completely_ unglued. You sound like a babbling retard right now.


You are a bitch seeker ? The truth is out. You just came out of the closet. I wouldn't use a political forum to find  your bitches.
So your solution is just, the morning  after pill ? . Your medical knowledge   is underwhelming. Sounds like a Trumper Humper. Do you guys share bitches ?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> No shit, stupid. So a woman is raped, she goes to the hospital - a rape kit is conducted, and then she is given the pill.


The morning after right. A rape kit is “ conducted “ ?
You live in a dream world.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hahahaha! So you admit voter fraud exists and yet you fight _against_ it. Very telling.


Fraud by republicans. Guess what ? They were caught. That’s what’s telling  dude. . That seemed to get by you. You're  very sharp. Seems lIke you didn't even know it happened.


----------



## P@triot

Tax Man said:


> So much envy from you that I have retired a wealthy man from all my years of labor.


Riiiiight. Amazing how many mooching socialists are “independently wealthy”


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You are a bitch seeker ?


 

Damn man…you really have come unglued. WTF is a “bitch-seeker” and what does it have to do with me exposing your ignorance?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The morning after right. A rape kit is “ conducted “ ?


Yes, dill-hole. That is _literally_ how it works.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Fraud by republicans.


Then why aren’t you fighting to have more secure elections?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Then why aren’t you fighting to have more secure elections?


You obviously can’t read. They are already effectively secure. We caught the republican effort. The people faced huge fines and years in jail. How uninformed can you be.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Yes, dill-hole. That is _literally_ how it works.


You’re a confused puppy. A “rape kit”  is an object. You conduct examinations and activities. Using a  “rape kit” is slang  for some of the elements used in the examine  Try again to make sense. It’s not happening now.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Damn man…you really have come unglued. WTF is a “bitch-seeker” and what does it have to do with me exposing your ignorance?


You catch your “bitches” on political forums ? What are you bi sexual ? You are one strange dude.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You catch your “bitches” on political forums ? What are you bi sexual ? You are one strange dude.


You’re working _really_ hard to draw everyone’s attention away from the fact that your ignorance was exposed, that you’re unglued because your “rape” fantasies are no longer an excuse for supporting the murder of babies, and that you had no clue that the so-called “Morning After pill” even existed.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You catch your “bitches” on political forums ?


Wait - so you’re admitting you’re a little “bitch”?


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again…








						California Must Adopt Constitutional Carry After Data Breach
					

Commentary The state of California cannot be trusted with sensitive data. This has been proven again with the ...




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Wait - so you’re admitting you’re a little “bitch”?


Wow, you need an emoji to tell someone you made a joke.


----------



## Uncensored2008

P@triot said:


> Wait - so you’re admitting you’re a little “bitch”?



He was born little.

He became a "bitch" in prison.

Isn't Dagosa a prison term for one who gives head while taking it in the ass?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Must Adopt Constitutional Carry After Data Breach
> 
> 
> Commentary The state of California cannot be trusted with sensitive data. This has been proven again with the ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theepochtimes.com


Oh, you mean the worlds  sixth largest economy and biggest donor state to federal aid sucking red states.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> Oh, you mean the worlds  sixth largest economy and biggest donor state to federal aid sucking red states.



  Texas gets back far less than they put in.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Wait - so you’re admitting you’re a little “bitch”?





HereWeGoAgain said:


> Texas gets back far less than they put in.


What they’re putting in isn’t working.
Texas is dead last in HS graduate rates
and poor among college grads.


			https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/states2.png?w=973


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dagosa said:


> What they’re putting in isn’t working.
> Texas is dead last in HS graduate rates
> and poor among college grads.
> 
> 
> https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/states2.png?w=973


dagosa i lived in cal for 50 years....back in the 60's and 70's the state was top 5 in ED.....now they are like bottom 15....what the hall happened?....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> What they’re putting in isn’t working.
> Texas is dead last in HS graduate rates
> and poor among college grads.
> 
> 
> https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/states2.png?w=973



   Of course you never stopped to think that illegal beaner kids are part of the equation.
As far as high school grads go you can blame beaners and blacks from the inner cities same as schools in the northeast who have grads that cant even spell.
   Your college grad statement is complete bullshit.


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Of course you never stopped to think that illegal beaner kids are part of the equation.
> As far as high school grads go you can blame beaners and blacks from the inner cities same as schools in the northeast who have grads that cant even spell.
> Your college grad statement is complete bullshit.


Maybe you never stopped to think like all Humpers, you’re a racist.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Texas gets back far less than they put in.



  You have anything else tax fan?


----------



## Dagosa

Harry Dresden said:


> dagosa i lived in cal for 50 years....back in the 60's and 70's the state was top 5 in ED.....now they are like bottom 15....what the hall happened?....


California ranks 20. 40 k-12 and 3 among college educated. 
It’s a mixed bag like any state that’s sixth in the world in economy. It’s HUGE.


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You have anything else tax fan?


You like posting * to yourself ?


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> far as high school grads go you can blame beaners and blacks from the inner cities same as schools in the northeast who have grads that cant even spell.


Hey dombas. You want to compare northeastern states in education with red states ? 3 of the top 4 are NE states…
Wrong again loser.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> You like posting * to yourself ?



  I was responding to his lame emoji.
Ya faggot.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> Hey dombas. You want to compare northeastern states in education with red states ? 3 of the top 4 are NE states…
> Wrong again loser.











						How it feels to be Javion: 16 and struggling to read in Chicago
					

He's a soft-spoken teenager who dreams of becoming a fashion designer. With a second-grade reading level, he risks becoming a terrible statistic.




					chicago.chalkbeat.org
				












						How can 84% of Chicago Public Schools students graduate when only 26% of 11th graders are proficient in reading, math? – Wirepoints Quickpoint | Wirepoints
					

Only 26 percent of CPS 11th-graders can read and do math at grade level, according to the latest Illinois Report Card data, and yet last week the district proudly announced that 84 percent of students graduated from CPS in 2021 – a new record high.




					wirepoints.org
				




Go fuck yourself and the stupid morons who graduate from your schools......even though they cant read.


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> How it feels to be Javion: 16 and struggling to read in Chicago
> 
> 
> He's a soft-spoken teenager who dreams of becoming a fashion designer. With a second-grade reading level, he risks becoming a terrible statistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chicago.chalkbeat.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can 84% of Chicago Public Schools students graduate when only 26% of 11th graders are proficient in reading, math? – Wirepoints Quickpoint | Wirepoints
> 
> 
> Only 26 percent of CPS 11th-graders can read and do math at grade level, according to the latest Illinois Report Card data, and yet last week the district proudly announced that 84 percent of students graduated from CPS in 2021 – a new record high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wirepoints.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself and the stupid morons who graduate from your schools......even though they cant read.


Oh, Illinois  is not in the north east dufus.
Illiterate in geography too ?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> Oh, Illinois  is not in the north east dufus.
> Illiterate in geography too ?



  Yeah it is.
Shall I post more about the leftwing school failures?


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> How it feels to be Javion: 16 and struggling to read in Chicago
> 
> 
> He's a soft-spoken teenager who dreams of becoming a fashion designer. With a second-grade reading level, he risks becoming a terrible statistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chicago.chalkbeat.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can 84% of Chicago Public Schools students graduate when only 26% of 11th graders are proficient in reading, math? – Wirepoints Quickpoint | Wirepoints
> 
> 
> Only 26 percent of CPS 11th-graders can read and do math at grade level, according to the latest Illinois Report Card data, and yet last week the district proudly announced that 84 percent of students graduated from CPS in 2021 – a new record high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wirepoints.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself and the stupid morons who graduate from your schools......even though they cant read.


Ba ha…..
Chicago is a city, not a state. 
Illinois ranks 21, well above MOST red states.

Try not to confuse states with cities. Forth Worth is not a red state.


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Yeah it is.
> Shall I post more about the leftwing school failures?


You’re confused between states and cities. Were  you “ejukated  “ in a red state ?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> Ba ha…..
> Chicago is a city, not a state.
> Illinois ranks 21, well above MOST red states.
> 
> Try not to confuse states with cities. Forth Worth is not a red state.



  Common....we all know it's the inner cities that fail our youth.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> You’re confused between states and cities. Were  you “ejukated  “ in a red state ?



   Actually I quit High School in the 10th grade.
 I went on to retire at 46.


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> dagosa i lived in cal for 50 years....back in the 60's and 70's the state was top 5 in ED.....now they are like bottom 15....what the hall happened?....


Everybody wanted to move there that's what happened and of course you have the GOP refusal of a good ID card so immigration has gone crazy. Great job, super dupe. NY is the Empire State and #1 again....lol. Oh, it's you. Come home lol, Bills are great, Buffalo is the Renaissance City, climate warmed....Come back little sheba! lol. and water water everywhere.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dagosa said:


> California ranks 20. 40 k-12 and 3 among college educated.
> It’s a mixed bag like any state that’s sixth in the world in economy. It’s HUGE.


sounds like an excuse.....they had a huge economy back in the 70's too.....and yet they were in the top 5....


----------



## francoHFW

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Common....we all know it's the inner cities that fail our youth.


and racist giveaway to the rich brainwashed GOP.....


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> sounds like an excuse.....they had a huge economy back in the 70's too.....and yet they were in the top 5....


What happened, the stupid brainwash racist giveaway to the rich GOP of Reagan happened, dunderhead...


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> Everybody wanted to move there that's what happened and of course you have the GOP refusal of a good ID card so immigration has gone crazy. Great job, super dupe. NY is the Empire State and #1 again....lol. Oh, it's you. Come home lol, Bills are great, Buffalo is the Renaissance City, climate warmed....Come back little sheba! lol. and water water everywhere.


your kind of people did this to the state franco.....great job super dupe.....


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> your kind of people did this to the state franco.....great job super dupe.....


The national government controls immigration and tax policy and that has been dominated the last 40 years by your crap GOP.....You are clueless.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> and racist giveaway to the rich brainwashed GOP.....


Phew, I thought you had forgotten that line.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> The national government controls immigration and tax policy and that has been dominated the last 40 years by your crap GOP.....You are clueless.


You so funny. You probably actually believe that.


----------



## HenryBHough

francoHFW said:


> The national government controls immigration and tax policy and that has been dominated the last 40 years by your crap GOP.....You are clueless.


So on your planet Xiden is a Republican and has a house and senate majority!


----------



## francoHFW

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Actually I quit High School in the 10th grade.
> I went on to retire at 46.


You beat the GOP odds..... Or joined the service....


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> You so funny. You probably actually believe that.


Do you have an actual argument or just more stupid crap? You're a total waste of time... Cheerio


----------



## hadit

HenryBHough said:


> So on your planet Xiden is a Republican and has a house and senate majority!


On his planet, it doesn't matter if democrats control anything at all, they're too scared a Republican might look at them sideways to do anything.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Do you have an actual argument or just more stupid crap? You're a total waste of time... Cheerio


Just giving your post the respect it deserves.


----------



## francoHFW

HenryBHough said:


> So on your planet Xiden is a Republican and has a house and senate majority!


the GOP has obstructed everything since the 60s except for obamacare, brainwashed functional moron. Scrap the crap GOP filibuster and let the USA see the facts....dingbat Dems.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Just giving your post the respect it deserves.


So you don't know that the national government controls taxation and immigration policies?post the respect it deserves.

So you don't know that the national government controls taxation and immigration policies? god damn idiot .... ....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

francoHFW said:


> You beat the GOP odds..... Or joined the service....



  Nope...I found that I could do far better than what the left wing school curriculum had to offer.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> So you don't know that the national government controls taxation and immigration policies?post the respect it deserves.
> 
> So you don't know that the national government controls taxation and immigration policies? god damn idiot .... ....


You so funny, you didn't even notice the rest of what you said that has us laughing so hard. You're probably so inured to it that you don't even notice it anymore, but it's funny.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> the GOP has obstructed everything since the 60s except for obamacare, brainwashed functional moron. Scrap the crap GOP filibuster and let the USA see the facts....dingbat Dems.


As I said...

Yet you keep voting for the guys that are so scared of Republicans they can't do anything.


----------



## francoHFW

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Nope...I found that I could do far better than what the left wing school curriculum had to offer.


You beat the odds....So why don't we have cheap college and training and a living wage and healthcare and daycare and great infrastructure and vacations like every other modern country, brainwashed functional moron....left wing is reality and truth, dingbat...


----------



## Dagosa

Harry Dresden said:


> sounds like an excuse.....they had a huge economy back in the 70's too.....and yet they were in the top 5....


Huge, really. It’s nothing compared to now. Anyone  who wants to complain about immigrants, look in the mirror. It’s businesses who are hiring and paying coyotes indirectly who are responsible. MOST of the illegals here are still visa overstays who are working, unreported and unregistered by businesses who hire them for Pennie’s on the dollar. The gop has flat refused to address the problem. Nothin* can be done because they are either too stooopid or too greedy to do comprehensive immigration  reform.


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I was responding to his lame emoji.
> Ya faggot.


You must be trolling for a friend you can come  out of the closet with. Look elsewhere.


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Actually I quit High School in the 10th grade.
> I went on to retire at 46.


It all fits together now.


francoHFW said:


> You beat the GOP odds..... Or joined the service....


Believe 1/10 you hear about how smart people on they right think they are. Remember  one self proclaimed chem expert denier who didn’t even know what a periodic table was.

This place is filled with experts who can’t blow their nose


----------



## Dagosa

Dagosa said:


> Huge, really. It’s nothing compared to now. Anyone  who wants to complain about immigrants, look in the mirror. It’s businesses who are hiring and paying coyotes indirectly who are responsible. MOST of the illegals here are still visa overstays who are working, unreported and unregistered by businesses who hire them for Pennie’s on the dollar. The gop has flat refused to address the problem. Nothin* can be done because they are either too stooopid or too greedy to do comprehensive immigration  reform.


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> The national government controls immigration and tax policy and that has been dominated the last 40 years by your crap GOP.....You are clueless.


the topic is about california dupe....immigration and tax policy is not controlled by the national govt in that state....yes you are clueless ......


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dagosa said:


> Huge, really. It’s nothing compared to now. Anyone  who wants to complain about immigrants, look in the mirror. It’s businesses who are hiring and paying coyotes indirectly who are responsible. MOST of the illegals here are still visa overstays who are working, unreported and unregistered by businesses who hire them for Pennie’s on the dollar. The gop has flat refused to address the problem. Nothin* can be done because they are either too stooopid or too greedy to do comprehensive immigration  reform.


ok....what does that have to do with education?....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

francoHFW said:


> You beat the odds....So why don't we have cheap college and training and a living wage and healthcare and daycare and great infrastructure and vacations like every other modern country, brainwashed functional moron....left wing is reality and truth, dingbat...



   Meh...I've always had at least three weeks vaca and I retired at 46 so time off has never been an issue with me.
Healthcare isnt an issue either.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> You must be trolling for a friend you can come  out of the closet with. Look elsewhere.



    And you can go fuck yourself.
 I wasn't responding to you so MYOB ya cock sucker.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dagosa said:


> It all fits together now.
> 
> Believe 1/10 you hear about how smart people on they right think they are. Remember  one self proclaimed chem expert denier who didn’t even know what a periodic table was.
> 
> This place is filled with experts who can’t blow their nose



   Ya can believe this ya spunk sponge.....


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> As I said...
> 
> Yet you keep voting for the guys that are so scared of Republicans they can't do anything.


At least their policies are correct, what's your idiotic excuse lol? Everything you know is wrong .... Everyone in the world knows it except for you idiots..... They are not scared, they are civilized which doesn't work all that well against incredibly well financed liars and cheaters and fools like you.


Harry Dresden said:


> the topic is about california dupe....immigration and tax policy is not controlled by the national govt in that state....yes you are clueless ......


google it for crying out loud....


----------



## francoHFW

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Meh...I've always had at least three weeks vaca and I retired at 46 so time off has never been an issue with me.
> Healthcare isnt an issue either.


Good for you!! Enjoy hell lol....He won't be amused by your I'm all right Jack attitude....


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> the topic is about california dupe....immigration and tax policy is not controlled by the national govt in that state....yes you are clueless ......


Immigration is directly controlled by Washington duh. Taxation, indirectly. Civilized Dem states get health care, better benefits by higher taxes...and of course get less tax money back from the feds. You can all die of thirst and heatstroke lol.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

francoHFW said:


> Good for you!! Enjoy hell lol....He won't be amused by your I'm all right Jack attitude....



   Who wont be amused?


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> At least their policies are correct, what's your idiotic excuse lol? Everything you know is wrong .... Everyone in the world knows it except for you idiots..... They are not scared, they are civilized which doesn't work all that well against incredibly well financed liars and cheaters and fools like you.
> 
> google it for crying out loud....


google your ass franco.....unlike you i lived there....immigration and the taxes had jack shit to do with DC.....


----------



## Dagosa

Harry Dresden said:


> ok....what does that have to do with education?....


Read what I responded to.


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> Immigration is directly controlled by Washington duh. Taxation, indirectly. Civilized Dem states get health care, better benefits by higher taxes...and of course get less tax money back from the feds. You can all die of thirst and heatstroke lol.....


directly controlled by Washington?.....lol.....California has no immigration policy.....there is a reason there are 2-3 million illegals living there....


----------



## Dagosa

Harry Dresden said:


> directly controlled by Washington?.....lol.....California has no immigration policy.....there is a reason there are 2-3 million illegals living there....


The Fed is mainly responsible for immigration.
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.”


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dagosa said:


> Read what I responded to.


i did.....we were talking education and why it went downhill....you are talking about immigration.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dagosa said:


> The Fed is mainly responsible for immigration.
> “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.”


which does jack shit in S.California....


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> directly controlled by Washington?.....lol.....California has no immigration policy.....there is a reason there are 2-3 million illegals living there....


GOP refusal of ID card, the only solution that works. They love the wedge issue, like abortion and guns, refuse a fix....Why do you think the Texas Gov doesn't do something about immigration, or any other state official.....


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> which does jack shit in S.California....


or anywhere else...Thanks GOP and ignoramuses...


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> google your ass franco.....unlike you i lived there....immigration and the taxes had jack shit to do with DC.....


You don't seem to know anything factual lol...


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> You don't seem to know anything factual lol...


and you dont seem to know anything about a state you have never experienced....change the channel dupe....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> or anywhere else...Thanks GOP and ignoramuses...


its always just the GOP .....franco a question..... does that party you follow without question,are they ever responsible for fucking things up?....


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> At least their policies are correct, what's your idiotic excuse lol? Everything you know is wrong .... Everyone in the world knows it except for you idiots..... They are not scared, they are civilized which doesn't work all that well against incredibly well financed liars and cheaters and fools like you.
> 
> google it for crying out loud....


Oh, they pretend to stand for things you like, no doubt. What they don't do is give them to you. Basically, you're voting for people because they make you feel good.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Oh, they pretend to stand for things you like, no doubt. What they don't do is give them to you. Basically, you're voting for people because they make you feel good.


You're just another idiot dupe of the greedy idiot scumbag GOP and it's ridiculous conspiracy nut propaganda........


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> its always just the GOP .....franco a question..... does that party you follow without question,are they ever responsible for fucking things up?....


Like what, ignoramus? Yes, they're too honest and civilized....idiot.


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> and you dont seem to know anything about a state you have never experienced....change the channel dupe....


Read something duh, I'm always looking at all world media, even Murdoch/GOP crap that only exists here, home of the stupidest voters in the modern world, still ahead of Tories....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> Like what, ignoramus? Yes, they're too honest and civilized....idiot.


.the democrats are honest?......well you just backed up what i have been saying about you.....follow without question.........you are a dumbass franco.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> Read something duh, I'm always looking at all world media, even Murdoch/GOP crap that only exists here, home of the stupidest voters in the modern world, still ahead of Tories....


like i said above franco.....you have never been there all you know is what some chump on the news tells you......


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> You're just another idiot dupe of the greedy idiot scumbag GOP and it's ridiculous conspiracy nut propaganda........


Which, though false on its face, says nothing about your slavish devotion to a party that gives you nothing they promise and your useful idiocy in continually blaming the other party, no matter how often or how long they have control. It is to be amused.


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> like i said above franco.....you have never been there all you know is what some chump on the news tells you......


I've been there five times,, went to Disneyland when about 10 people were there, drank for a week in SF, a week outside Ukiah, and Cal's problem is it's TOO successful (and our fucked up GOP immigration policy...)., drove the whole coast, AND I TRY TO STAY WELL-FORMED, sheisskopf....everything you know (???) is tripe about politics, and everything else it appears...... Total brainwashed mealy mouthed dink lol....Always a total waste of time....Cheerio


----------



## Resnic

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .




Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Indiana, Colorado, Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Maine, Wyoming, Virginia. Hell I don't know, almost all of them. Except New York, that place is a shit hole also.


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> .the democrats are honest?......well you just backed up what i have been saying about you.....follow without question.........you are a dumbass franco.....


A Dem lie then, shyttehead? Not about a bj! The GOP and its propaganda machine lie non-stop about election fraud vaccination et cetera hoaxes and conspiracies, and every time they get in they destroy the world economy with bubbles and busts, totally corrupt, and you vote for them because they are so great  at obstructing progress and fairness- idiot


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Which, though false on its face, says nothing about your slavish devotion to a party that gives you nothing they promise and your useful idiocy in continually blaming the other party, no matter how often or how long they have control. It is to be amused.


And you get tax cuts for the rich the stupidest wars ever lies nonstop, a corrupt bubble and bust every time, and the worst inequality and upward mobility ever anywhere by far in the modern world. genius!


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> I've been there five times,, went to Disneyland when about 10 people were there, drank for a week in SF, a week outside Ukiah, and Cal's problem is it's TOO successful (and our fucked up GOP immigration policy...)., drove the whole coast, AND I TRY TO STAY WELL-FORMED, sheisskopf....everything you know (???) is tripe about politics, and everything else it appears...... Total brainwashed mealy mouthed dink lol....Always a total waste of time....Cheerio


oh shit you drove down the coast?....why didnt you say so....so you do know what it is like to live there?...franco you are what you said here....Total brainwashed mealy mouthed dink .....and if i am such a waste of time,why do you spend so much time with me?....


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> A Dem lie then, shyttehead? Not about a bj! The GOP and its propaganda machine lie non-stop about election fraud vaccination et cetera hoaxes and conspiracies, and every time they get in they destroy the world economy with bubbles and busts, totally corrupt, and you vote for them because they are so great  at obstructing progress and fairness- idiot


franco you follow the democrats without question.....you are just like the die hard republicans,they follow their party pretty much without questions too....so no matter what i point out you will say its bullshit.....they do the same thing over there....another thing about you that is also like them.....if someone has the gall and audacity to disagree with you....you must be from the other party.....you die hard party people are so brainwashed you cant get it through your thick skulls that not everybody cares for either one of your useless parties.....i bet right now you are going ...."HUH?".....fuck the bills franco.......


----------



## francoHFW

Harry Dresden said:


> oh shit you drove down the coast?....why didnt you say so....so you do know what it is like to live there?...franco you are what you said here....Total brainwashed mealy mouthed dink .....and if i am such a waste of time,why do you spend so much time with me?....


You are a WNYer after all...It's a political argument and I believe you are semi open minded if you can stop saying California nonstop...It's not a mystery....too many gd people and too many illegals. And yes over population is caused by GOP fighting BC and abortions around the world. ALWAYS a catastrophe. Also wrecked League of nations, the Treaty of Versailles, the 1929 world depression, isolationism the 2008 world depression the 2019 world depression et cetera etcetera etcetera stupidest wars ever.........why didnt you say so....so you do know what it is like to live there?...franco you are what you said here....Total brainwashed mealy mouthed dink .....and if i am such a waste of time,why do you spend so much time with me?....

You are a WNYer after all...It's a political argument and I believe you are semi open minded if you can stop saying California nonstop...It's not a mystery....too many gd people and too many illegals. And yes over population is caused by GOP fighting BC and abortions around the world forever. ALWAYS a catastrophe. Also wrecked League of nations and the Treaty of Versailles, the 1929 world depression, isolationism the 2008 world depression the 2019 world depression et cetera etcetera etcetera stupidest wars ever..... unless you are a greedy rich ******* comma they are the wrong party. Now tell me what Dems did...


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Which, though false on its face, says nothing about your slavish devotion to a party that gives you nothing they promise and your useful idiocy in continually blaming the other party, no matter how often or how long they have control. It is to be amused.


Dems have had 60 votes in the Senate for 30 days in session, in the middle of another corrupt GOP world depression LOL, 4 Obamacare, the last 60 years!!!. The last 40 years have been a gigantic GOP giveaway to the rich duh. If the GOP base would vote for the policies they want instead of the liar they want to have a beer with, we would be getting somewhere ... .


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> And you get tax cuts for the rich the stupidest wars ever lies nonstop, a corrupt bubble and bust every time, and the worst inequality and upward mobility ever anywhere by far in the modern world. genius!


You forgot to mention Murdoch. Get with it, you're slipping.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Dems have had 60 votes in the Senate for 30 days in session, in the middle of another corrupt GOP world depression LOL, 4 Obamacare, the last 60 years!!!. The last 40 years have been a gigantic GOP giveaway to the rich duh. If the GOP base would vote for the policies they want instead of the liar they want to have a beer with, we would be getting somewhere ... .


Dude, face reality. They could have had 70 votes for 10 years in a row and you'd STILL blame the Republicans for stopping them. They don't know how to negotiate, and they don't want to. If they can't get everything they want right now, they don't go for anything. And you keep voting for them. They could not have a more useful idiot.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Dude, face reality. They could have had 70 votes for 10 years in a row and you'd STILL blame the Republicans for stopping them. They don't know how to negotiate, and they don't want to. If they can't get everything they want right now, they don't go for anything. And you keep voting for them. They could not have a more useful idiot.


gop base, dumbest voters in the modern world by far. At least it is the White Party right? Poor America.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Wow, you need an emoji to tell someone you made a joke.


No - I need it to express how hard I'm laughing. (hint: _really_ hard)


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Oh, you mean the worlds  sixth largest economy


Should be the world's *#1* economy with it's size, natural resources, coast, and Hollywood industry. If conservatives ran it, California alone would trump the entire rest of the US economy.


Dagosa said:


> and biggest donor state to federal aid sucking red states.


That's been debunked about 7,000 times already. At what point will you educate yourself? Then again, if you actually did, then you would no longer be a liberal! 🤷‍♂️ 








						Liberals Resurrect Myth That Blue States Subsidize Red States
					

The fiscally irresponsible point the finger at everyone else....




					bongino.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Maybe you never stopped to think like all Humpers, you’re a racist.


Maybe you never stopped to think that - like *ALL* liberals - you accuse others of that which you are actually guilty of yourself.

Who controls education in Texas? LIBERALS. And that is why it sucks ass.

We spend more on education now than any time in history, and we have worse results now than any time in history. That flawlessly summarizes liberalism. Waste money and create failure.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> gop base, dumbest voters in the modern world by far. At least it is the White Party right? Poor America.


Now you're just flailing out in left field somewhere, not even attempting to address the topic. Maybe you need a nap?


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Now you're just flailing out in left field somewhere, not even attempting to address the topic. Maybe you need a nap?


If Dems had 70 senators we would have a different country with taxes on the rich and giant corporations healthcare for everyone daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations. Of course you can't pass those things in the middle of a depression which is what the GOP always leaves us... Especially with 48 votes... We are the richest country in the world and the only modern country without those things. Thanks GOP! and dunderheads...


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Should be the world's *#1* economy with it's size, natural resources, coast, and Hollywood industry. If conservatives ran it, California alone would trump the entire rest of the US economy.
> 
> That's been debunked about 7,000 times already. At what point will you educate yourself? Then again, if you actually did, then you would no longer be a liberal! 🤷‍♂️
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals Resurrect Myth That Blue States Subsidize Red States
> 
> 
> The fiscally irresponsible point the finger at everyone else....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bongino.com


Dan is FOS duh...


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Maybe you never stopped to think that - like *ALL* liberals - you accuse others of that which you are actually guilty of yourself.
> 
> Who controls education in Texas? LIBERALS. And that is why it sucks ass.
> 
> We spend more on education now than any time in history, and we have worse results now than any time in history. That flawlessly summarizes liberalism. Waste money and create failure.


GOP controls the state. 


Harry Dresden said:


> .the democrats are honest?......well you just backed up what i have been saying about you.....follow without question.........you are a dumbass franco.....


You have NEVER given a single example of Dem lie or fuck up or anything else, just BULLSHYTTE. lol


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> GOP controls the state.
> 
> You have NEVER given a single example of Dem lie or fuck up or anything else, just BULLSHYTTE. lol


i have told you before franco.....but you said California dont count.....they must be a different type of democrat.....


----------



## CommunistFront

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


It's not genuine leftism, it's just capitalism.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> No - I need it to express how hard I'm laughing. (hint: _really_ hard)


If you  still have to explain yourself, it’s not funny.


----------



## Dagosa

CommunistFront said:


> It's not genuine leftism, it's just capitalism.


Capitalism is “leftism”. Fascism is the right.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> GOP controls the state.


And liberals control education in the state. And as they have in every other state, they've completely fucked it up.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Capitalism is “leftism”.


Bwahaha! The people who rail against capitalism are the "capitalists", uh? 


Dagosa said:


> Fascism is the right.


Fascism is exclusively left-wing. You cannot have small, limited government fascism. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Should be the world's *#1* economy with it's size, natural resources, coast, and Hollywood industry. If conservatives ran it, California alone would trump the entire rest of the US economy.


Kind of an insane response. How can a state in the United States have an economy greater then the entire country ?

You had a Republican controlled gov with  Reagan. He ran up the debt in California like he ran up the debt in the United  States and developed trickle down Economics, which never worked and resulted in EVERY REPUGNANT budget leading to a recession. Reagan had two of them.


Rethink California being number one  in the world….it’s impossible.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> And liberals control education in the state. And as they have in every other state, they've completely fucked it up.


More made up shit.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahaha! The people who rail against capitalism are the "capitalists", uh?
> 
> Fascism is exclusively left-wing. You cannot have small, limited government fascism. 🤦‍♂️


Go get a dictionary. You’re out of your league.


----------



## CommunistFront

Dagosa said:


> Capitalism is “leftism”. Fascism is the right.


What these FOX News right-wingers call "leftism" is nothing more than capitalist neo-liberalism and decadence. It has nothing to do with genuine Marxism.


----------



## Dagosa

CommunistFront said:


> What these FOX News right-wingers call "leftism" is nothing more than capitalist neo-liberalism and decadence. It has nothing to do with genuine Marxism.


To call the left here in America, fascism, is idiotic. Nearly Everything the right is doing and promoting now, is fascism.
By their own admission, they have no agenda other then to get elected by any means possible short of using the voting process. Yup, so If that isn’t fascism….


----------



## Dagosa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Yeah it is.


Illinois is a mid west state, not northeast. Geography……help.


----------



## Dagosa

Harry Dresden said:


> which does jack shit in S.California....


That’s funny. You expect local authorities to enforce immigration laws ? That’s stupid. Being  an illegal immigrant  a misdemeanor. You going to do what dombas, take their library card ? They have no authority to deport anyone.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> You so funny. You probably actually believe that.


He’s right, you’re FOS.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Kind of an insane response. How can a state in the United States have an economy greater then the entire country ?


By not letting liberals fuck it up.


Dagosa said:


> You had a Republican controlled gov with  Reagan. He ran up the debt in California like he ran up the debt in the United  States and developed trickle down Economics, which never worked and resulted in EVERY REPUGNANT budget leading to a recession. Reagan had two of them.


Bwahahaha!! The United States experienced _unprecedented_ prosperity under Ronald Reagan. That’s just a *fact*.

Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats ran the US into the ground (as usual). By the time Reagan left office a mere 8 years later, it was known as the era of “excess”.


> Middle class income increased 11% after adjustment for inflation, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created.


Your disinformation doesn’t hold up in the era of the internet, dumb ass. It’s easy to find the facts.


Dagosa said:


> Rethink California being number one  in the world….it’s impossible.


It’s literally not impossible for California to have an economy more successful than all other 49 states combined.

I always marvel at a liberals inability to grasp even _basic_ concepts 🤦‍♂️


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> More made up shit.


You know a liberal is thoroughly defeated when they don’t even try to make up more lies. When they respond with 4 word sentences like “more made up shit”, you know that they know the facts are against them.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You expect local authorities to enforce immigration laws ?


Yep. Since the Dumbocrats in Washington D.C. won’t.


Dagosa said:


> That’s stupid.


Not nearly as stupid as everything you post on USMB.


Dagosa said:


> Being  an illegal immigrant  a misdemeanor.


So throw their ass in prison. You know, *enforce the law*. A concept lost on the lawless thugs known as the left.


Dagosa said:


> You going to do what dombas, take their library card ? They have no authority to deport anyone.


You’re literally sitting here arguing _for_ crime and against enforcing our most basic laws. Think about what that says about you. About your character. About your desperation to have foreigners interfere with our elections.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Yep. Since the Dumbocrats in Washington D.C. won’t.
> 
> Not nearly as stupid as everything you post on USMB.
> 
> So throw their ass in prison. You know, *enforce the law*. A concept lost on the lawless thugs known as the left.
> 
> You’re literally sitting here arguing _for_ crime and against enforcing our most basic laws. Think about what that says about you. About your character. About your desperation to have foreigners interfere with our elections.


And you‘re sitting here in total ignorance of law enforcement. YOU are arguing for a fascist regime. Do you know  illegal Immigration is a misdemeanor. Look up what a misdemeanor is. ONLY federal authorities have access to the resources to deport people. Only ignorant people think a cop in a Midwest small town can deport an illegal immigrant for a misdemeanor. It’s the stupidest thought anyone could argue for . It’s up businesses who hire them  and know their vital statistics and addresses to report the illegals location to federal authorities who can then pick them up and  deport them. Wonder why they don’t do it. Dah. It’s up to people like you who hire non English speaking roofers for pennies  on the dollar without asking  to see their work visas.

If they get caught committing a FELONY, it’s reported along with their status by locals….only then does the Fed get involved.



YOU are arguing for fascism, and you are probably ignorant of it.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> You know a liberal is thoroughly defeated when they don’t even try to make up more lies. When they respond with 4 word sentences like “more made up shit”, you know that they know the facts are against them.


After posting paragraphs  of made up shit, you bozos need a refresher.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> If Dems had 70 senators we would have a different country with taxes on the rich and giant corporations healthcare for everyone daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations. Of course you can't pass those things in the middle of a depression which is what the GOP always leaves us... Especially with 48 votes... We are the richest country in the world and the only modern country without those things. Thanks GOP! and dunderheads...


And if unicorns were real, I would sell you the one in my backyard, cheap.

IOW, you would like us to be like those European countries who are relying on Uncle Sam for defense so they can afford lavish spending, and they still have incredibly high taxes.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> He’s right, you’re FOS.


Wow, another witty reply from the peanut gallery. Will the madness never stop?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> And if unicorns were real, I would sell you the one in my backyard, cheap.
> 
> IOW, you would like us to be like those European countries who are relying on Uncle Sam for defense so they can afford lavish spending, and they still have incredibly high taxes.


European countries pay more for nearly everything for one reason;  they lack the natural resources we have. The entire ww2 oil supply by our allies was supplied by the United States. That’s why we were partially dependent upon SA for Middle East oil for decades. We saved their ass from being taken over by axis powers. Most wars are fought over natural resources, just like the Ukraine / Russian war NOW.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Wow, another witty reply from the peanut gallery. Will the madness never stop?


As long as people keep, posting made up shit, it won’t .


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> European countries pay more for nearly everything for one reason;  they lack the natural resources we have.


Natural resources? And here I thought we were importing so much. Oh well, at least they can rely on Uncle Sam to spend billions for their defense.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> As long as people keep, posting made up shit, it won’t .


You must be new to the party. That other poster is famous for spouting off the same 5 or 6 made up things in almost every post, and the longer you engage him, the less coherent he gets. It's quite entertaining. I see that you would like to join the fray.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> You must be new to the party. That other poster is famous for spouting off the same 5 or 6 made up things in almost every post, and the longer you engage him, the less coherent he gets. It's quite entertaining. I see that you would like to join the fray.


We have a poster now claiming that local police should have the authority to deport illegals. That’s ridiculous argument made on the belief of  made up shit. This one ? He’s obviously a right winger.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> We have a poster now claiming that local police should have the authority to deport illegals. That’s ridiculous argument made on the belief of  made up shit. This one ? He’s obviously a right winger.


Obviously, it's born out of frustration with the federal lack of response to illegal immigration.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Natural resources? And here I thought we were importing so much. Oh well, at least they can rely on Uncle Sam to spend billions for their defense.


We do that for nations we defeat in wars and unstable regimes like axis powers and pre Soviet countries. It takes years before NATO allows them to have advanced weaponry.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Obviously, it's born out of frustration with the federal lack of response to illegal immigration.


There is no federal lack of response. They are handcuffed by the lack of laws and authority to deal with illegal immigration.

You want all them deported ? Just make it a federal felony crime to hire them or not report their locations by their employers.
Most illegals are still here because of expired visa overstays. Businesses hire them for cheap and pass the savings on to  their consumers. It’s no different then having cars built in Mexico by cheap labor. You have your toys on the backs of slave labor either here illegally or in Mexico legally.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> We do that for nations we defeat in wars and unstable regimes like axis powers and pre Soviet countries. It takes years before NATO allows them to have advanced weaponry.


We've been providing Western Europe's defense since WWII and there's no real good reason for us to still be there, short of projecting American power around the globe. Of course, as soon as we pulled out, everyone would start suspiciously watching Germany and siphoning money from their lavish social programs to build up their militaries. You know, just in case. You can't adoringly point to Western Europe's spending without acknowledging America's role in providing for their defense.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> There is no federal lack of response. They are handcuffed by the lack of laws and authority to deal with illegal immigration.
> 
> You want all them deported ? Just make it a federal felony crime to hire them or not report their locations by their employers.
> Most illegals are still here because of expired visa overstays. Businesses hire them for cheap and pass the savings into their consumers. It’s no different then having cars built in Mexico b6 cheap labor. You have your toys in the backs of slave labor either here illegally or in Mexico legally.


There is a lack of federal response when the administration openly relaxes controls at the border and just distributes illegal immigrants throughout the nation (not in the president's backyard, mind you. That would be different). Immigration is a federal issue. It's literally defense of the nation's border to know who is entering the country. Don't you remember the sanctuary cities that openly announced that they would defy the federal government's authority and prevent the deportation of immigrants?

And shouldn't you bother to find out my stance on immigration before projecting something?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> There is a lack of federal response when the administration openly relaxes controls at the border and just distributes illegal immigrants throughout the nation (not in the president's backyard, mind you. That would be different). Immigration is a federal issue. It's literally defense of the nation's border to know who is entering the country. Don't you remember the sanctuary cities that openly announced that they would defy the federal government's authority and prevent the deportation of immigrants?
> 
> And shouldn't you bother to find out my stance on immigration before projecting something?


Again, most are from visa overstays. 
Sanctuary cities are the result of repugnants refusing to have comp immigration reform. Businesses are not held responsible for hiring them.

You’re making up shit. Local  law enforcement does not enforce federal laws…..it’s a misdemeanor. Only the feds can do it and ONLY IF THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THEM  are reporting their status…


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> There is a lack of federal response when the administration openly relaxes controls at the border and just distributes illegal immigrants throughout the nation (not in the president's backyard, mind you. That would be different). Immigration is a federal issue. It's literally defense of the nation's border to know who is entering the country. Don't you remember the sanctuary cities that openly announced that they would defy the federal government's authority and prevent the deportation of immigrants?
> 
> And shouldn't you bother to find out my stance on immigration before projecting something?


Your stance is based upon made up shit and your ignorance of federal laws. The laws are inadequate and the repugnants are paid by businesses who hire illegals ( like Trump did) to do nothing about it.

For two years while Trump was president and in full control, repugnants couldn’t even finance your ridiculous wall. THEY DID NOTHING. They are bought and paid for by businesses who hire illegals. Stop making up shit.

Repugnants block every attempt in the senate with filibuster when not in charge.m


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Again, most are from visa overstays.
> Sanctuary cities are the result of repugnants refusing to have comp immigration reform. Businesses are not held responsible for hiring them.
> 
> You’re making up shit. Local  law enforcement does not enforce federal laws…..it’s a misdemeanor. Only the feds can do it and ONLY IF THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THEM  are reporting their status…


How can sanctuary cities be the RESULT of no immigration reform? It is obviously cities governed by democrats who DESIRE the influx of illegal immigrants, or they would cooperate with the feds to enforce federal law. At least you recognize it is the feds' responsibility to enforce immigration laws, and Quid Pro Joe's fed is doing a lousy job of it.

I do believe you are simply making stuff up as you go along.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Your stance is based upon made up shit and your ignorance of federal laws. The laws are inadequate and the repugnants are paid by businesses who hire illegals ( like Trump did) to do nothing about it.
> 
> For two years while Trump was president and in full control, repugnants couldn’t even finance your ridiculous wall. THEY DID NOTHING. They are bought and paid for by businesses who hire illegals. Stop making up shit.
> 
> Repugnants block every attempt in the senate with filibuster when not in charge.m


You don't even know what my stance is, so you project something you made up for yourself.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> You don't even know what my stance is, so you project something you made up for yourself.


If Joe is doing such a poor job, remember Trump did worse then Obama. I don’t know your stance because you don’t seem to have one. It’s obvious it’s uninformed. Cities don’t enforce federal misdemeanors. It’s the businesses that hire them that are responsible for turning them into the Fed. How is that so hard to understand ? These people are employed. Dah.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> If Joe is doing such a poor job, remember Trump did worse then Obama. I don’t know your stance because you don’t seem to have one. It’s obvious it’s uninformed. Cities don’t enforce federal misdemeanors. It’s the businesses that hire them that are responsible for turning them into the Fed. How is that so hard to understand ? These people are employed. Dah.


Apparently, you're not following. Sanctuary cities openly announce that they will not cooperate with or obey federal immigration law. That's not the same as your red herring of enforcing immigration law. When they apprehend an illegal immigrant, they are supposed to notify the feds and hold that immigrant until the feds pick them up. Sanctuary cities state that they will not do that. And I find it highly amusing to see yet another feeble attempt to "defend" the indefensible by invoking the specter of TRUMP!.

And you haven't even bothered to ask me what my stance is, you're still projecting.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Apparently, you're not following. Sanctuary cities openly announce that they will not cooperate with or obey federal immigration law. That's not the same as your red herring of enforcing immigration law. When they apprehend an illegal immigrant, they are supposed to notify the feds and hold that immigrant until the feds pick them up. Sanctuary cities state that they will not do that. And I find it highly amusing to see yet another feeble attempt to "defend" the indefensible by invoking the specter of TRUMP!.
> 
> And you haven't even bothered to ask me what my stance is, you're still projecting.


why are you openly disregarding the people who have THE MOST authority and responsibility  refer them  to the feds…..their employees and you people who hire them, rent them apartments. The police don’t handle administrative misdemeanors not under their jurisdiction. . 
you are, their employer and renter

They openly announce they have no right to enforce immigration laws that are MISDOMEANORS. How is that so hard to understand. It’s a misdemeanor. How stupid is it to process misdemeanors not even under your jurisdiction . If a person commits a felony, a fed SHOULD be notified and LOCAL authorities will make a request.  You fools want to pass the buck. It’s you and their employees who are responsible for administrative  offenses.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> And if unicorns were real, I would sell you the one in my backyard, cheap.
> 
> IOW, you would like us to be like those European countries who are relying on Uncle Sam for defense so they can afford lavish spending, and they still have incredibly high taxes.


We are the richest country in the world and can definitely afford a lot more than we're getting that's for sure. This is a basic list and I'll tell you they have much more successful family farms etcetera etcetera instead of corporations being in control of the money and not being taxed, super duper. If we cut defense 10%, it would pay for it. They pay for themselves. TAX THE RICH, chump of the greedy idiot GOP rich LIARS.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> why are you openly disregarding the people who have THE MOST authority and responsibility  refer them  to the feds…..their employees and you people who hire them, rent them apartments. The police don’t handle administrative misdemeanors not under their jurisdiction. .
> you are, their employer and renter
> 
> They openly announce they have no right to enforce immigration laws that are MISDOMEANORS. How is that so hard to understand. It’s a misdemeanor. How stupid is it to process misdemeanors not even under your jurisdiction . If a person commits a felony, a fed SHOULD be notified and LOCAL authorities will make a request.  You fools want to pass the buck. It’s you and their employees who are responsible for administrative  offenses.


Except that I don't employ any illegals, so there's that. Again, you project instead of finding out. That's called making stuff up. 

The states' responsibility when they apprehend an illegal immigrant is to notify the feds and hold that person until the feds come to pick them up. Why is that hard for you to understand? Sanctuary cities have announced that they will defy that and not turn the illegal immigrants over to the feds. Again, why is that hard to understand?


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> We are the richest country in the world and can definitely afford a lot more than we're getting that's for sure. This is a basic list and I'll tell you they have much more successful family farms etcetera etcetera instead of corporations being in control of the money and not being taxed, super duper. If we cut defense 10%, it would pay for it. They pay for themselves. TAX THE RICH, chump of the greedy idiot GOP rich LIARS.


We can't afford the crap we're getting now, or haven't you noticed the national debt? They've been printing new money out of nothing for years now, pretending it won't have any impact on the economy. You're a dolt if you think we can just start spending on massive new nanny state programs with no ill effects.

We could just pull out of our bases around the world and watch as hostilities resume their natural progression. Then we could cut defense by a lot. Of course, a lot of people would die, but what does that matter?


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> We can't afford the crap we're getting now, or haven't you noticed the national debt? They've been printing new money out of nothing for years now, pretending it won't have any impact on the economy. You're a dolt if you think we can just start spending on massive new nanny state programs with no ill effects.
> 
> We could just pull out of our bases around the world and watch as hostilities resume their natural progression. Then we could cut defense by a lot. Of course, a lot of people would die, but what does that matter?


Just tax the rich and giant corps and cut subsidies for Big Oil the swine lol.....TEN PER CENT, dupe.


----------



## bendog

Even the sardines in California are committing suicide!  








						First, the Fish Fell From the Sky. Then They Washed Ashore.
					

One night last month, Britt Gerhard and her husband heard a bang on the roof of their house in San Francisco around 8 p.m. It was so loud, they thought it was an earthquake. The couple had just put their 4-year-old daughter to bed, and Gerhard, a 38-year-old artist, was alarmed. Suddenly, shiny...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Just tax the rich and giant corps and cut subsidies for Big Oil the swine lol.....TEN PER CENT, dupe.


And, naturally, you think they would just absorb it without raising prices across the board. Tell me, do you despise the poor that much?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Except that I don't employ any illegals, so there's that. Again, you project instead of finding out. That's called making stuff up.
> 
> The states' responsibility when they apprehend an illegal immigrant is to notify the feds and hold that person until the feds come to pick them up. Why is that hard for you to understand? Sanctuary cities have announced that they will defy that and not turn the illegal immigrants over to the feds. Again, why is that hard to understand?


Don’t really care what you support. I do care what repugnants support when in office. It’s recessions, terrorism and higher death rates. The top 14 covid death rates are in repugnant led states with policies that support illegal immigration.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Don’t really care what you support. I do care what repugnants support when in office. It’s recessions, terrorism and higher death rates. The top 14 covid death rates are in repugnant led states with policies that support illegal immigration.


Oh, so you want to change the subject from accusing me of stuff to saying you don't care what I support. Can you pick a horse and stay on it?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Oh, so you want to change the subject from accusing me of stuff to saying you don't care what I support. Can you pick a horse and stay on it?


You have a horses ass. That’s about it. The thread is about right wing misery in retort. You stay on topic.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> You have a horses ass. That’s about it. The thread is about right wing misery in retort. You stay on topic.


And here you spent all that time and effort claiming I was responsible for illegal immigration. Okay, if you want to change subjects, go ahead.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Oh, so you want to change the subject from accusing me of stuff to saying you don't care what I support. Can you pick a horse and stay on it?


Btw dufus, California is supporting in state manufacturing of least expensive insulin. What policies does  Florida  support ? Voter suppression, rigging elections anti gay and  anything else literally, that doesn’t help Americans.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Btw dufus, California is supporting in state manufacturing of least expensive insulin. What policies does  Florida  support ? Voter suppression, rigging elections anti gay and  anything else literally, that doesn’t help Americans.


Hmmm, so instead of defending or pointing out good things about California that are actually bearing fruit right now, you decide to complain about Florida, as if that will make California look better. Here's a clue, Florida has nothing to do with California, it's only a deflection attempt. But do pick up your participation trophy at the receptionist's desk on your way out.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> And, naturally, you think they would just absorb it without raising prices across the board. Tell me, do you despise the poor that much?


End the ridiculous giveaway to the rich and giant corps Big Oil Big Pharma, Big Money and REGULATE and oversee them....Remain calm lol....Everybody else does it, I'm just saying more like that....


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Hmmm, so instead of defending or pointing out good things about California that are actually bearing fruit right now, you decide to complain about Florida, as if that will make California look better. Here's a clue, Florida has nothing to do with California, it's only a deflection attempt. But do pick up your participation trophy at the receptionist's desk on your way out.


Florida is nutty RW and a laughingstock....Cal is HUGE, just too successful and victim of GOP national immigration policy- no ID card, the only solution...


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Hmmm, so instead of defending or pointing out good things about California that are actually bearing fruit right now, you decide to complain about Florida, as if that will make California look better. Here's a clue, Florida has nothing to do with California, it's only a deflection attempt. But do pick up your participation trophy at the receptionist's desk on your way out.


Maybe your attention  span is weak. California is investing 100 million in instate insulin medication manufacturing…. to help make it cheapest in the  nation. Say what ? You have policies that make you the worse covid death rates in the red states. So much for being pro life.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> End the ridiculous giveaway to the rich and giant corps Big Oil Big Pharma, Big Money and REGULATE and oversee them....Remain calm lol....Everybody else does it, I'm just saying more like that....


Giving government more regulatory power would just put more democrats in position to sell that power to the highest bidder. The big boys would just write the laws to benefit themselve and make sure no smaller company gets big enough to compete with them. But hey, keep dreaming.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Maybe your attention  span is weak. California is investing 100 million in instate insulin medication manufacturing…. to help make it cheapest in th3 nation. Say what ? You guys want to shit on the poor…..


Cheapest to who, the customer or the taxpayer that's coughing up the 100 mil? "My healthcare is the cheapest in the world, I don't pay a penny when I go to the hospital. My taxes? Doesn't everyone pay 50% income taxes?"


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Giving government more regulatory power would just put more democrats in position to sell that power to the highest bidder. The big boys would just write the laws to benefit themselve and make sure no smaller company gets big enough to compete with them. But hey, keep dreaming.


What ? You want to regulate free elections, regulate a woman’s right to choose, regulate history in school to only  reflect positive old white guys, regulate who can get married, regulate who can’t get married….

Oh, and you want it all done for nothing.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> What ? You want to regulate free elections, regulate a woman’s right to choose, regulate history in school to only  reflect positive old white guys, regulate who can get married, regulate who can’t get married….
> 
> Oh, and you want it all done for nothing.


Wow, still projecting. I keep telling you not to use those foil helmets you buy off the back page of your comic books because they don't work, but you never listen.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Giving government more regulatory power would just put more democrats in position to sell that power to the highest bidder. The big boys would just write the laws to benefit themselve and make sure no smaller company gets big enough to compete with them. But hey, keep dreaming.


That's the GOP way, like the last 40 years duh.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> That's the GOP way, like the last 40 years duh.


That's the Big Business way, and to democrats, government is just the biggest of Big Business. They have power and they're willing to sell it. What, did you really think Hunter got all those cushy, high paying jobs because he was an awesome businessman? C'mon, man, you know better than that.


----------



## BothWings

I try to make it a point to boycott California in every way possible. 
It's a little difficult for me when shopping for wine. California is the only U.S. state which can compete with places like Italy, Spain, France and South America for wines. Most of the time I find myself gravitating to Argentinian wines if i can get them. I steer clear of Chilean wines because Chile abuses their neighbors economically, particularly Peru. And most European countries have similar commie principles like California does, so it just makes it hard. I might opt for Spanish wine before Californian, but France is also on my shit-list and I rarely will buy wines from there. 

Whenever I'm shopping online, I avoid buying things from California, even on eBay. I want this known because if you live in California, hopefully you'll pressure your leaders to cut out their commie shit. Same goes goes for New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Mass., and any other Blue-extremist state. I try to convince as many other people as possible to adopt this policy. 

Seriously. If I was shopping for say...a bicycle carrier for my car, and there was one in California and one in say...Michigan, and they were within a couple of dollars in price...I would not hesitate to buy from Michigan before California every time.  There might be things I don't like about Michigan either, but California is the 500lb gorilla of commie states in the U.S., with New York a close second. I want to damage those states economies in every way possible. I already moved out of New York 14 years ago and won't move back. It's a beautiful state, and there are some things I really miss, but I will not spend a dime there until they drop their commie ways. And I am always trying nudge others to do the same.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> That's the Big Business way, and to democrats, government is just the biggest of Big Business. They have power and they're willing to sell it. What, did you really think Hunter got all those cushy, high paying jobs because he was an awesome businessman? C'mon, man, you know better than that.


How bout those Trump kids? Give me a break lol....Google Hunter and his training.


----------



## francoHFW

BothWings said:


> I try to make it a point to boycott California in every way possible.
> It's a little difficult for me when shopping for wine. California is the only U.S. state which can compete with places like Italy, Spain, France and South America for wines. Most of the time I find myself gravitating to Argentinian wines if i can get them. I steer clear of Chilean wines because Chile abuses their neighbors economically, particularly Peru. And most European countries have similar commie principles like California does, so it just makes it hard. I might opt for Spanish wine before Californian, but France is also on my shit-list and I rarely will buy wines from there.
> 
> Whenever I'm shopping online, I avoid buying things from California, even on eBay. I want this known because if you live in California, hopefully you'll pressure your leaders to cut out their commie shit. Same goes goes for New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Mass., and any other Blue-extremist state. I try to convince as many other people as possible to adopt this policy.
> 
> Seriously. If I was shopping for say...a bicycle carrier for my car, and there was one in California and one in say...Michigan, and they were within a couple of dollars in price...I would not hesitate to buy from Michigan before California every time.  There might be things I don't like about Michigan either, but California is the 500lb gorilla of commie states in the U.S., with New York a close second. I want to damage those states economies in every way possible. I already moved out of New York 14 years ago and won't move back. It's a beautiful state, and there are some things I really miss, but I will not spend a dime there until they drop their commie ways. And I am always trying nudge others to do the same.


what commie ways, dupe....Tax problems are because of national giveaway to the rich GOP policies....but you're obviously baffled by GOP BS and hate....


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> That's the Big Business way, and to democrats, government is just the biggest of Big Business. They have power and they're willing to sell it. What, did you really think Hunter got all those cushy, high paying jobs because he was an awesome businessman? C'mon, man, you know better than that.


Try thinking policy instead of bs hate of some schnook lol....


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Cheapest to who, the customer or the taxpayer that's coughing up the 100 mil? "My healthcare is the cheapest in the world, I don't pay a penny when I go to the hospital. My taxes? Doesn't everyone pay 50% income taxes?"


You’re a confused puppy aren’t you. Insulin is a medication, it isn’t all of healthcare. Why are you babbling about something* else ? Maybe you don’t know what insulin is. About ( 6 million people are on insulin.. ) 

Someone else take care of you in the home ?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Wow, still projecting. I keep telling you not to use those foil helmets you buy off the back page 📄 of your comic books because they don't work, but you never listen.


Typical pigeon head rant. Are you finished child ?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Go get a dictionary. You’re out of your league.


I provide sound, concrete facts (such as “you cannot have small, limited government fascism”) - to which you lash out like a toddler since you realize you can’t dispute the sound, concrete facts.

Like all leftists - you have the IQ and emotional maturity of a toddler.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> To call the left here in America, fascism, is idiotic.


No snowflake, it’s *fact* (and you _know_ it).

The left here in America:

Assaulted anyone wearing a red MAGA hat (violence to achieve political agenda)
Burned entire cities to the ground (violence to achieve political agenda)
Overthrew local US governments and replaced them with “Autonomous Zones” (violence to achieve political agenda)
Tries to force citizens to reject reality and deny science by demanding we call actual biological males “women” (propaganda, disinformation, and elimination of freedom of speech)
Tried to eliminate the 2nd Amendment (fascists immediately disarm the population once they are in power)
Promotes the abortion industrial complex (eugenics is a cornerstone of fascism)
Attempts to rewrite history (propaganda & disinformation)

I could continue but you’ve been humiliated enough for one day 🤷‍♂️


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> YOU are arguing for a fascist regime. Do you know  illegal Immigration is a misdemeanor.


The left: “enforcing the law makes one a fascist!”  

You’re just _humiliating_ yourself at this point. You’re so desperate - and so incapable of making a logical/rational position - that you’re you’re just screaming nonsense like someone with Tourette’s.


----------



## P@triot

Low IQ Dagosa:


Dagosa said:


> Only ignorant people think a cop in a Midwest small town can deport an illegal immigrant for a misdemeanor.


Also low IQ Dagosa:


Dagosa said:


> It’s up to people like you who hire non English speaking roofers for pennies  on the dollar without asking  to see their work visas.


Did you catch that, folks? In the same paragraph the low-IQ leftists says “local law enforcement can’t enforce the law - it’s up to people like you to do it”


----------



## AZrailwhale

AntonToo said:


> Idiot, have you ever even been there? It's crazy nice...so much so that everyone wants to be there and real estate is through the roof.


Parts of California are nice.  From Ventura to the Mexican border is insanely overcrowded. The Bay Area has become an overcrowded hole.  Sacramento is full of corrupt politicians and lobbyists.  Central California on the coast is really nice as is coastal Northern California.  The Sierras are beautiful.


----------



## AZrailwhale

P@triot said:


> More proof of what a shit-hold state California is. A well run state addresses traffic properly.


California’s traffic problems are self inflicted.  It’s population has tripled since the last major freeway was built.  It also lets small numbers of NIMBYs block freeway expansions.  A couple of decades ago there was a plan to widen and double deck the Ventura Freeway through the San Fernando Valley.  It was blocked by a neighborhood group.  One of the local radio stations investigated the group and it turned out to be ONE man.  One man blocked a project that would have benefitted a hundred thousand people a day.


----------



## AZrailwhale

SYTFE said:


> That's because everyone wants to live in California, and no one wants to live in the redneck hell called Texas.  Prices reflect supply and demand, moron.


In California demand sets prices,  the government has restricted home and apartment construction for decades so there is a long lasting shortage of housing.


----------



## AZrailwhale

AntonToo said:


> LOL wtf? Where do I compare life in Iraq?
> 
> Here's my advice to you - stop all the ridiculous politicking based on your TV adventures and go take a vacation.
> 
> Pack some basic shit and head down to California, rent a convertible and drive down (or up) the coast - I promise you a trip you'll remember for the rest of your life.


Through Big Sur, yes, from Marin to the Columbia River, yes.  South of the Ventura River a driver is lucky to average ten mph all the way to the Mexican border.


----------



## P@triot

This is what liberalism looks like. It turns a once-paradise like California into a third-world shit-hole.








						Video Shows the Human Feces Students Need to Walk Through in the Progressive Paradise of San Francisco
					

People voted for this.




					www.louderwithcrowder.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You had a Republican controlled gov with  Reagan. He ran up the debt in California like he ran up the debt in the United  States and developed trickle down Economics, which never worked and resulted in EVERY REPUGNANT budget leading to a recession.


Your disinformation doesn’t hold up in the era of the internet and 4k ultra HD video recorders on every cell phone.

This is what your *ignorant* left-wing ideology produces:


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Your disinformation doesn’t hold up in the era of the internet and 4k ultra HD video recorders on every cell phone.
> 
> This is what your *ignorant* left-wing ideology produces:


You doubt Reagan ran up the debt ? Newb.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Low IQ Dagosa:
> 
> Also low IQ Dagosa:
> 
> Did you catch that, folks? In the same paragraph the low-IQ leftists says “local law enforcement can’t enforce the law - it’s up to people like you to do it”


Boy, you ARE a dishonest person. You put a comment you claimed I made in quotes and then changed it to something else. . You’re obligated to provide an exact quote and not make up shit. But then, I expected no less.


----------



## Dagosa

AZrailwhale said:


> California’s traffic problems are self inflicted.  It’s population has tripled since the last major freeway was built.  It also lets small numbers of NIMBYs block freeway expansions.  A couple of decades ago there was a plan to widen and double deck the Ventura Freeway through the San Fernando Valley.  It was blocked by a neighborhood group.  One of the local radio stations investigated the group and it turned out to be ONE man.  One man blocked a project that would have benefitted a hundred thousand people a day.


Most of Californias problems stem from paying so much money into the Fed then having it go to red states which are much worse in most categories.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> How bout those Trump kids? Give me a break lol....Google Hunter and his training.


Severe case of waddaboudism you have going there. Might want to see someone about it.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Try thinking policy instead of bs hate of some schnook lol....


Yes, I understand democrats make a policy out of selling access to their offices.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> You’re a confused puppy aren’t you. Insulin is a medication, it isn’t all of healthcare. Why are you babbling about something* else ? Maybe you don’t know what insulin is. About ( 6 million people are on insulin.. )
> 
> Someone else take care of you in the home ?


You said the state is investing 100 million. Where does that come from?


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Typical pigeon head rant. Are you finished child ?


Are you going to stop pretending you can read minds?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> You said the state is investing 100 million. Where does that come from?


California….dah.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Boy, you ARE a dishonest person. You put a comment you claimed I made in quotes and then changed it to something else. . You’re obligated to provide an exact quote and not make up shit. But then, I expected no less.


I didn’t edit _anything_, lying little asshat. It’s all there for everyone to see - with a link to make it easy.

You’re literally so ignorant, you can’t even remember your own words.


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again. The Dumbocrats are so damn dumb, it’s no wonder they collapse the US _every_ time they are in control.








						California law may backfire terribly as 70,000 independent truckers could be forced out of work, unleashing 'devastating' supply chain misery
					

A California law threatens to unleash more supply chain misery and inflation on residents of the Golden State by forcing independent truckers out of the workforce. California Assembly Bill 5 was introduced by former state Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, a Democrat, and signed into law in...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

This is what liberalism looks like 👇 🤮 


> Tents fill the sidewalks. Addicts sit on curbs and lean against walls, nodding off to their fentanyl and heroin fixes, or wander around in meth-induced psychotic states. Drug dealers stake out their turf and sell in broad daylight











						In San Francisco, a Zone of Lawless Sovereignty
					

Organized drug and theft networks thrive in San Francisco’s Tenderloin because of the near-total absence of the enforcement of laws.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> I didn’t edit _anything_, lying little asshat. It’s all there for everyone to see - with a link to make it easy.
> 
> You’re literally so ignorant, you can’t even remember your own words.


Post my words idiot .....the quote you made is no such thing. You’re a fraud and dishonest. 
You have a computer. There is a little arrow up button to go back to any post, use it fool.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> California….dah.


Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> I didn’t edit _anything_, lying little asshat. It’s all there for everyone to see - with a link to make it easy.
> 
> You’re literally so ignorant, you can’t even remember your own words.


More slander but no proof from a dishonest poster. Typical made up shit from a Humper.


hadit said:


> Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.


You asked who was paying for it. I answered; CALIF.
Who else pays for a state govt. enterprise. It either was polled heavily or a referendum. Either way, the state  tax payers for California will fund it.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Low IQ Dagosa:
> 
> Also low IQ Dagosa:
> 
> Did you catch that, folks? In the same paragraph the low-IQ leftists says “local law enforcement can’t enforce the law - it’s up to people like you to do it”


Totally dishonest post. You put in quotes something that wasn’t even posted by me. You didn’t even read my post correctly. You just dishonestly pretended what you wanted me to say, and put it into quotes. You don’t even know that illegal immigration is an administrative misdemeanor.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> More slander but no proof from a dishonest poster. Typical made up shit from a Humper.
> 
> You asked who was paying for it. I answered; CALIF.
> Who else pays for a state govt. enterprise. It either was polled heavily or a referendum. Either way, the state  tax payers for California will fund it.


And therein lies the rub. You have to account for the 100 mil the taxpayers are shelling out for research.


----------



## P@triot

Liberals have run California into the ground. It's now a third-world country where brazen crime takes place in broad daylight because criminals know they can.








						SoCal: Armed Robbers Pistol Whip Asian Couple, Rob Man of $60,000 Rolex in Broad Daylight Attack (VIDEO)
					

Los Angeles County, California – Armed robbers pistol whipped an Asian couple and robbed the man of his $60,000 Rolex in a broad daylight attack this weekend. The couple were in the parking lot of the 99 Ranch Market store in Rowland Heights loading groceries in their trunk when they were...




					www.thegatewaypundit.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Totally dishonest post. You put in quotes something that wasn’t even posted by me. You didn’t even read my post correctly. You just dishonestly pretended what you wanted me to say, and put it into quotes. You don’t even know that illegal immigration is an administrative misdemeanor.


Not dishonest at all - it has your original posts unedited. 100% accurate.

Not my fault you realize how stupid you sound now.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Not dishonest at all - it has your original posts unedited. 100% accurate.
> 
> Not my fault you realize how stupid you sound now.


Unedited if you’re illiterate, which you seem to be. You don’t seem to know what quote marks represent, or you’re the most dishonest poster among dishonest Humpers.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Unedited if you’re illiterate, which you seem to be. You don’t seem to know what quote marks represent, or you’re the most dishonest poster among dishonest Humpers.


Quote marks are not the same as including your original, unedited response - which I did. You can't wiggle your way out of this one. It's all there for everyone to see.

You're so incapable of being a reasonable adult, that you actually said law enforcement can't enforce the law, but the average citizen was responsible for doing so.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Quote marks are not the same as including your original, unedited response - which I did. You can't wiggle your way out of this one. It's all there for everyone to see.
> 
> You're so incapable of being a reasonable adult, that you actually said law enforcement can't enforce the law, but the average citizen was responsible for doing so.


You’re dishonest. You changed what I posted and put it in quotes. 
That’s a dishonest person. That’s you.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You’re dishonest. You changed what I posted and put it in quotes.
> That’s a dishonest person. That’s you.


It’s all right there for everyone to see - unedited. I don’t blame you for being ashamed of your ignorant comments. I would be too if I were you.


----------



## P@triot

⁦‪Gavin Newsom‬⁩ has created a near-totalitarian fascist state in California. And the results reflect it. He turned it into a third-world shit-hole.








						Gavin Newsom's Weird Idea of 'Freedom'
					

In recent decades, hundreds of thousands of Californians and billions of dollars of wealth fled California for far freer states.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> It’s all right there for everyone to see - unedited. I don’t blame you for being ashamed of your ignorant comments. I would be too if I were you.


It must really upset you that you like Trump, get called out for what you are.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> ⁦‪Gavin Newsom‬⁩ has created a near-totalitarian fascist state in California. And the results reflect it. He turned it into a third-world shit-hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gavin Newsom's Weird Idea of 'Freedom'
> 
> 
> In recent decades, hundreds of thousands of Californians and billions of dollars of wealth fled California for far freer states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


Hilarious. You probably think Hitler was for  free election and personal freedom. You wouldn’t know a fascist state if you lived in one……as long as it’s all white, you’re a happy guy.

California pays  red state bills of the trailer trash.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Hilarious. You probably think Hitler was for  free election and personal freedom.


Hey, _you’re_ the fascists who believe that everyone exists to serve the state and that personal freedom is a “threat”.


Dagosa said:


> You wouldn’t know a fascist state if you lived in one……


Dagosa here thinks the US just isn’t fascist enough. Unfuckingbelievable.


Dagosa said:


> California pays  red state bills of the trailer trash.


That’s been debunked thousands of times. But as a devout fascist, you refuse to acknowledge truth.


----------



## P@triot

Democrats have turned California into a third-world shit-hole.

Incidentally, Bobby would be alive today if he had the damn sense to have a gun on him.








						Update: NASCAR star Bobby East, 37, stabbed to death at California gas station while filling up car, suspect shot and killed by SWAT team
					

Editor's note: The article has been updated with new information from the Westminster Police Department.NASCAR star Bobby East was stabbed to death at a California gas station while filling up his car. The three-time US Auto Club (USAC) champ was only 37 years old when he died.At around 5:50...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hey, _you’re_ the fascists who believe that everyone exists to serve the state and that personal freedom is a “threat”.
> 
> Dagosa here thinks the US just isn’t fascist enough. Unfuckingbelievable.
> 
> That’s been debunked thousands of times. But as a devout fascist, you refuse to acknowledge truth.


You must be doing a comedy act. You in a fk up zone ?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hey, _you’re_ the fascists who believe that everyone exists to serve the state and that personal freedom is a “threat”.
> 
> Dagosa here thinks the US just isn’t fascist enough. Unfuckingbelievable.
> 
> That’s been debunked thousands of times. But as a devout fascist, you refuse to acknowledge truth.


Fascist….right wing.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Hey, _you’re_ the fascists who believe that everyone exists to serve the state and that personal freedom is a “threat”.
> 
> Dagosa here thinks the US just isn’t fascist enough. Unfuckingbelievable.
> 
> That’s been debunked thousands of times. But as a devout fascist, you refuse to acknowledge truth.


Really. You’re the one who doesn’t believe in counting anything but the white vote. Fascism. Look it up. Right wing. You have to lie to even stay relevant . While the other sides is trying to expand healthcare you’re trying to take it away. Women’s rights?  How can you be anything but fascist if you use the govt to deny women their rights.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Really. You’re the one who doesn’t believe in counting anything but the white vote.


Never said that. Never even _thought_ that. Once again you resort to *lying* because you're pissed off we won't allow illegal aliens (ie foreigners) to vote in our elections.


Dagosa said:


> Fascism. Look it up.


I have. Studied it extensively. It is exclusively left-wing. And every educated person on the planet, knows it. Think about what that says about _you_. 


Dagosa said:


> While the other sides is trying to expand healthcare you’re trying to take it away.



You have no authority to "expand healthcare". More proof that you're a fuck'n fascist. You guys try to take power where no power exists
You're not trying to "expand healthcare" - you're trying to _control _healthcare. Healthcare in America is abundantly fucking available. I think we have more hospitals than any nation in the world. There is nothing to "expand".



Dagosa said:


> Women’s rights?  How can you be anything but fascist if you use the govt to deny women their rights.


No woman has ever been "denied" a "right" by conservatives in the 21st Century. You fascist mother-fuckers have denied millions of women the right to life by systematically exterminating them in the womb.

We stopped that atrocity. We corrected that wrong. Women's rights (including the right to life) is now secured thanks to Republicans.


----------



## P@triot

The 3rd-world, shit-hole state of California has failed so miserably that they are posting billboards begging citizens not to leave…


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> The 3rd-world, shit-hole state of California has failed so miserably that they are posting billboards begging citizens not to leave…
> View attachment 691026


California, with the sixth, soon to be fifth biggest economy IN THE WORLD. Why don’t you talk about Mississippi and the rest of the feckless red states who suck federal aid from the the blue donor states just to survive. California wouldn’t have anywhere near some of the problems they do if they were allowed to keep their tax base and not trying to keep Mississippi afloat with their archaic governance.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> The 3rd-world, shit-hole state of California has failed so miserably that they are posting billboards begging citizens not to leave…
> View attachment 691026


Looks to me like they’re posting facts about Texas and Florida, two or the biggest St messes in the US. BTW, the red states dwarfs the rest of the country in their percent of poor and homeless. They are  mismanaged beggar States  looking for handouts from the Fed every year.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> California, with the sixth, soon to be fifth biggest economy IN THE WORLD.


It literally should be the FIRST “biggest economy in the world”. It should exceed all other 49 US states _combined_ with its massive size, endless natural resources, perfect climate for agriculture, coast for shipping, seafood, and tourism, and Hollywood movie industry.

Only a leftist could celebrate being 6th at something that they should be #1. Not to mention it was the 5th largest economy in the world and has dropped yet _again_. 


Dagosa said:


> Why don’t you talk about Mississippi and the rest of the feckless red states who suck federal aid from the the blue donor states just to survive.


Nobody is fleeing Mississippi chief 

And your disinformation has been debunked a zillion times already.








						Liberals Resurrect Myth That Blue States Subsidize Red States
					

The fiscally irresponsible point the finger at everyone else....




					bongino.com
				





Dagosa said:


> California wouldn’t have anywhere near some of the problems they do if they were *allowed* *to keep their tax base*


So you admit that the *failed* left-wing ideology only “works” when you’re allowed to enslave people against their will?

Because their “tax base” are the people and companies. And both are fleeing that shit-hole state. So much so that California has to put up billboards _begging_ people not to leave


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Looks to me like they’re posting facts about Texas and Florida, two or the biggest St messes in the US.


Both states are _flourishing_. Tesla, Oracle, and HP all left California for Texas.


Dagosa said:


> They are  mismanaged beggar States  looking for handouts from the Fed every year.


No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it will *never* be true.








						Liberals Resurrect Myth That Blue States Subsidize Red States
					

The fiscally irresponsible point the finger at everyone else....




					bongino.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> *Looks to me* like they’re posting *facts* about Texas and Florida…


What does that say about you and how educated you are then, as it is *not* a fact at all? 








						California Billboards Don’t Tell the Whole Story
					

Billboards in California warn Californians about mass public shootings in Texas, specifically pointing to the recent Uvalde school shooting.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> California, with the sixth, soon to be fifth biggest economy IN THE WORLD. Why don’t you talk about Mississippi and the rest of the feckless red states who suck federal aid from the the blue donor states just to survive. California wouldn’t have anywhere near some of the problems they do if they were allowed to keep their tax base and not trying to keep Mississippi afloat with their archaic governance.


Since federal taxation and redistribution of said taxes is a FEDERAL issue, and the FEDERAL government has been controlled by democrats for the last number of years, one would rightly think California has a problem sticking to a budget because DEMOCRATS are sucking them dry.

How come California can't seem to find accountants who can add numbers up and say, "You can't spend $2 billion more on tampons in men's bathrooms this year, because we're out of money"? You know, because they're so wealthy and stuff.


----------



## themirrorthief

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


tennessee and tennessee


----------



## themirrorthief

jasonnfree said:


> So which state are you living in, if you don't mind me asking.  Me, I'm in California and I don't believe it's as bad as you say it is.  It's so large and diverse, it could be it's own country.


I live in tennessee, lately all my neighbors are from california...when I say I always wanted to visit there they start in with the horror stories, junkies sleeping in their yards, no power much of the time. their kids terrified by gang bangers, people shitting on the sidewalks...drunks wandering around everywhere I admit that Nashille has gotten pretty shitty with some areas more like mexico than tennessee but I will take it anyhow


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Since federal taxation and redistribution of said taxes is a FEDERAL issue, and the FEDERAL government has been controlled by democrats for the last number of years, one would rightly think California has a problem sticking to a budget because DEMOCRATS are sucking them dry.
> 
> How come California can't seem to find accountants who can add numbers up and say, "You can't spend $2 billion more on tampons in men's bathrooms this year, because we're out of money"? You know, because they're so wealthy and stuff.


Wrong. We had 4 years of Trump. He’s the ceo of the Fed.
You're foolish if you think California has more problems then red states. It’s laughable.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Since federal taxation and redistribution of said taxes is a FEDERAL issue, and the FEDERAL government has been controlled by democrats for the last number of years, one would rightly think California has a problem sticking to a budget because DEMOCRATS are sucking them dry.
> 
> How come California can't seem to find accountants who can add numbers up and say, "You can't spend $2 billion more on tampons in men's bathrooms this year, because we're out of money"? You know, because they're so wealthy and stuff.


Hilarious.
97% of the countries 100 poorest counties are in RED STATES

Clean  up your own act.


----------



## Dagosa

themirrorthief said:


> I live in tennessee, lately all my neighbors are from california...when I say I always wanted to visit there they start in with the horror stories, junkies sleeping in their yards, no power much of the time. their kids terrified by gang bangers, people shitting on the sidewalks...drunks wandering around everywhere I admit that Nashille has gotten pretty shitty with some areas more like mexico than tennessee but I will take it anyhow


Congrats.Your state is among the worse 10 in poverty rate in the US. Notice, no California.
But you’re in good company. Lots of other red states suck just as much.

Mississippi - 19.07%
Louisiana - 18.05%
New Mexico - 17.90%
West Virginia - 16.84%
Kentucky - 15.82%
Arkansas - 15.51%
Alabama - 15.03%
Oklahoma - 14.63%
South Carolina - 13.92%
Tennessee - 13.74%


----------



## Dagosa

themirrorthief said:


> tennessee and tennessee


Tennessean 13.74 poverty rate, 10 th worse in nation.

Mississippi - 19.07%
Louisiana - 18.05%
New Mexico - 17.90%
West Virginia - 16.84%
Kentucky - 15.82%
Arkansas - 15.51%
Alabama - 15.03%
Oklahoma - 14.63%
South Carolina - 13.92%
Tennessee - 13.74%


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> The 3rd-world, shit-hole state of California has failed so miserably that they are posting billboards begging citizens not to leave…
> View attachment 691026


The State is only the 6 largest economy in the world.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Wrong. We had 4 years of Trump. He’s the ceo of the Fed.
> You're foolish if you think California has more problems then red states. It’s laughable.


And 8 years of Obama before him. No, you don't get away with it that easily. And yes, California really does have more problems than most other nations. I mean, they keep electing democrats.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Hilarious.
> 97% of the countries 100 poorest counties are in RED STATES
> 
> Clean  up your own act.


California has the largest budget deficit of all the states. Living on credit is fun until the bill comes due.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> California has the largest budget deficit of all the states. Living on credit is fun until the bill comes due.


Mainly because it’s the largest state……dah.
Red states get and need the most federal aid “per resident”, non math person.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> And 8 years of Obama before him. No, you don't get away with it that easily. And yes, California really does have more problems than most other nations. I mean, they keep electing democrats.


Really ? You live under a rock. The gdp of calif. Is GREATER THEN UK…..math illiterate. Dems must be doing something a lot better then repugnants in RED STATES WHO ARE PERPETUALLY IN DISTRESS.  
“California’s GDP was $3.2 trillion in 2018, accounting for 14.6% of the entire United States economy. If California were a nation, it would rank fifth in terms of size, ahead of India and the United Kingdom. Which is the 5th largest economy? India has been relegated to sixth place in the world’s economy in 2020, having previously ranked fifth.”


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Never said that. Never even _thought_ that. Once again you resort to *lying* because you're pissed off we won't allow illegal aliens (ie foreigners) to vote in our elections.
> 
> I have. Studied it extensively. It is exclusively left-wing. And every educated person on the planet, knows it. Think about what that says about _you_.
> 
> 
> You have no authority to "expand healthcare". More proof that you're a fuck'n fascist. You guys try to take power where no power exists
> You're not trying to "expand healthcare" - you're trying to _control _healthcare. Healthcare in America is abundantly fucking available. I think we have more hospitals than any nation in the world. There is nothing to "expand".
> 
> No woman has ever been "denied" a "right" by conservatives in the 21st Century. You fascist mother-fuckers have denied millions of women the right to life by systematically exterminating them in the womb.
> 
> We stopped that atrocity. We corrected that wrong. Women's rights (including the right to life) is now secured thanks to Republicans.


Huh ? Maybe you don't believe in a woman’s right to choose the health of her own body during pregnancy after rape, incest and  physical complications. None of you male  fart faces  get it. You will at the poles in Nov. YOU WILL LOSE at least the senate and probably both because of that one issue.
Why do you hate women ? Can’t get laid ? Look in the mirror then.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> And 8 years of Obama before him. No, you don't get away with it that easily. And yes, California really does have more problems than most other nations. I mean, they keep electing democrats.


Gee, dems  must be doing something right; it seems to be doing better then the UK and India and every other state in the union when it comes to the GDP. Ever check  the economy of red states ? They are poorer as a group and destitute.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Since federal taxation and redistribution of said taxes is a FEDERAL issue, and the FEDERAL government has been controlled by democrats for the last number of years, one would rightly think California has a problem sticking to a budget because DEMOCRATS are sucking them dry.
> 
> How come California can't seem to find accountants who can add numbers up and say, "You can't spend $2 billion more on tampons in men's bathrooms this year, because we're out of money"? You know, because they're so wealthy and stuff.


You must be referring to accountants  in red states


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> stopped that atrocity. We corrected that wrong. Women's rights (including the right to life) is now secured thanks to Republicans.


How does that help 10 year old rape victims forced to give birth IN red states. I’m sure you think a 10 year old who needs a child seat in a car is old enough to give birth after a rape. You ignorants are SICK.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Mainly because it’s the largest state……dah.
> Red states get and need the most federal aid “per resident”, non math person.


So why are they living on credit cards again?


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Really ? You live under a rock. The gdp of calif. Is GREATER THEN UK…..math illiterate. Dems must be doing something a lot better then repugnants in RED STATES WHO ARE PERPETUALLY IN DISTRESS.
> “California’s GDP was $3.2 trillion in 2018, accounting for 14.6% of the entire United States economy. If California were a nation, it would rank fifth in terms of size, ahead of India and the United Kingdom. Which is the 5th largest economy? India has been relegated to sixth place in the world’s economy in 2020, having previously ranked fifth.”


And a lot of it is on credit.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Gee, dems  must be doing something right; it seems to be doing better then the UK and India and every other state in the union when it comes to the GDP. Ever check  the economy of red states ? They are poorer as a group and destitute.


They're also experiencing a massive drain of taxpayers, going to, guess where? Red states.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> You must be referring to accountants  in red states


Nope, I checked.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> They're also experiencing a massive drain of taxpayers, going to, guess where? Red states.


No facts just blather.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Nope, I checked.


In yo mamas basement.


----------



## otto105

hadit said:


> And 8 years of Obama before him. No, you don't get away with it that easily. And yes, California really does have more problems than most other nations. I mean, they keep electing democrats.


Apparently, the cult worshipping QOP brand doesn’t sell in the state.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> They're also experiencing a massive drain of taxpayers, going to, guess where? Red states.


Well of course. Many of the  low income, poorly educated trailer trash crowd is leaving for red states. Of course. They are all consolidating with the white supremest dufus crowd. Makes sense.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> No facts just blather.


Facts.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> In yo mamas basement.


Oh, look, an infantile attempt at a feeble insult. My oh my, whatever will I do? It is to laugh, quite hardily.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Well of course. Many of the  low income, poorly educated trailer trash crowd is leaving for red states. Of course. They are all consolidating with the white supremest dufus crowd. Makes sense.


Check again to see who's leaving. You do realize you're just making up stuff to spin it, right?


----------



## hadit

otto105 said:


> Apparently, the cult worshipping QOP brand doesn’t sell in the state.


They've certainly drunk the Kool-aid, that's for sure.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Check again to see who's leaving. You do realize you're just making up stuff to spin it, right?


Absolutely not. Just look at the lower educated, lower income crowd in the red states. No one is saying some are not leaving * California. But it’s the same crowd. . Misery loves company …..Their states they are moving to  are  also among the most dangerous to live. That’s fact…..deal with it. Denial is made up shit.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Absolutely not. Just look at the lower educated, lower income crowd in the red states. No one is saying some are not leaving * California. But it’s the same crowd. . Misery loves company …..Their states they are moving to  are  also among the most dangerous to live. That’s fact…..deal with it. Denial is made up shit.


And to think that we've been hearing all this time that you have to be rich to vote Republican. California shows the rich apparently vote democrat. Oh, well, those big companies leaving California for greener shores are certainly far more welcome where they're going.

Obviously, you need to get out more and meet some real people.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> And to think that we've been hearing all this time that you have to be rich to vote Republican. California shows the rich apparently vote democrat. Oh, well, those big companies leaving California for greener shores are certainly far more welcome where they're going.
> 
> Obviously, you need to get out more and meet some real people.


Obviously  need to get out more instead of just trolling with your Humper buddies on the net. 
Red states on average  are more dangerous, pay lower wages and have higher poverty rates. Regardless what your bogus claims are, it’s all lies.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Obviously  need to get out more instead of just trolling with your Humper buddies on the net.
> Red states on average  are more dangerous, pay lower wages and have higher poverty rates. Regardless what your bogus claims are, it’s all lies.


Screeching "it’s all lies" is a sure sign of a fail. California is a paradise only for the ultra-wealthy, as seen by the steady parade of those exiting for greener pastures elsewhere.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> And to think that we've been hearing all this time that you have to be rich to vote Republican. California shows the rich apparently vote democrat. Oh, well, those big companies leaving California for greener shores are certainly far more welcome where they're going.
> 
> Obviously, you need to get out more and meet some real people.


The people you hang with just make  up shit. Fact.
Red states have higher poverty rates.
Fact, average income in red states are lower.
Fact,  rime rates are higher on average in red states.
Now keep telling us how repugnants do a better job….that’s made up shit.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Screeching "it’s all lies" is a sure sign of a fail. California is a paradise only for the ultra-wealthy, as seen by the steady parade of those exiting for greener pastures elsewhere.


And red states are a paradise for the poor, uneducated and criminals who seem to be thriving there.

No offense intended  for the trailer trash crowd. Live your life.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> California is a paradise only for the ultra-wealthy, as seen by the steady parade of those exiting for greener pastures elsewhere.


Nope, it’s the trailer trash crowd who are leaving for red states.  Check  the numbers. If what you say were true, you’d be getting wealthier. You aren’t. Your lower GDP and higher crime rates suck.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> The people you hang with just make  up shit. Fact.
> Red states have higher poverty rates.
> Fact, average income in red states are lower.
> Fact,  rime rates are higher on average in red states.
> Now keep telling us how repugnants do a better job….that’s made up shit.


Yeah, living on credit is living large, until the bill comes due. California's bill is coming due. That's why people are leaving.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> And red states are a paradise for the poor, uneducated and criminals who seem to be thriving there.
> 
> No offense intended  for the trailer trash crowd. Live your life.


Funny when you have to pay in California for a trailer what sane people in red states pay for a house.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Nope, it’s the trailer trash crowd who are leaving for red states.  Heck the numbers. If what you say were true, you’d be getting wealthier. You aren’t. Your GDP and crime rates suck.


Keep the faith on that, I hear it helps.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Keep the faith on that, I hear it helps.


Nope, I just refuse to listen to the trailer trash crowd and pretend they know shit.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Funny when you have to pay in California for a trailer what sane people in red states pay for a house.


In a higher crime state, less safe with limited job  opportunities while working in a coal mine.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> In a higher crime state, less safe with limited job  opportunities while working in a coal mine.


Coal mine? Where do you get your information from, 1895? Obviously you have no idea what it's like anywhere other than the hellhole you live in. But hey, as long as it keeps you there thinking you're living large, go for it.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Coal mine? Where do you get your information from, 1895? Obviously you have no idea what it's like anywhere other than the hellhole you live in. But hey, as long as it keeps you there thinking you're living large, go for it.


I f Trump had his way, he’d reopen the coal mines for all you guys to work in. Hell hole ? I live on shore frontage   with 8 golf courses within a  30 minute drive. We leave the keys to our cars in the ignition when not using  them. All in a blue state. The only crime in our area for the last 25 years has been  illegal parking, and the occasional loud party…


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Coal mine? Where do you get your information from, 1895? Obviously you have no idea what it's like anywhere other than the hellhole you live in. But hey, as long as it keeps you there thinking you're living large, go for it.


853 coal mines…..mostly in red states. Get real.
You‘re so poorly informed it’s pitiful.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> I f Trump had his way, he’d reopen the coal mines for all you guys to work in. Hell hole ? I live on shore frontage   with 8 golf courses within a  30 minute drive. We leave the keys to our cars in the ignition when not using  them. All in a blue state. The only crime in our area for the last 25 years has been  illegal parking, and the occasional loud party…


Ah, yes, the inevitable refuge of the terminally small=minded, that old bugaboo TRUMP! You do know you're describing virtually every small town or rural area in the South, right?


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> 853 coal mines…..mostly in red states. Get real.
> You‘re so poorly informed it’s pitiful.


You seem to believe most people in red states work in coal mines. Hence, your label of woefully and terminally misinformed and uneducated. Like I said, you need to get out more and meet some real people.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> You seem to believe most people in red states work in coal mines. Hence, your label of woefully and terminally misinformed and uneducated. Like I said, you need to get out more and meet some real people.


No, I seem to believe you didn’t know much about red states and coal. Hanging with fellow Humpers won’t help you understand shit.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Ah, yes, the inevitable refuge of the terminally small=minded, that old bugaboo TRUMP! You do know you're describing virtually every small town or rural area in the South, right?


Not really. Most of the higher crime ridden states are RED.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Maybe you don't believe in a woman’s right to choose the health of her own body


I absolutely do. I just recognize that she doesn’t have a right to kill someone _else_. And DNA unequivocally *proves* that the baby is a unique and separate life.

Stop being a science-denying clown. DNA defeated you low-IQ leftists many decades ago 


Dagosa said:


> None of you male  fart faces  get it.


Nice 3rd grade comment. Very typical of you low-IQ leftists.


Dagosa said:


> You will at the poles in Nov.


Bwahahaha!! Ok, Nostradamus. I remember when you low-IQ liberals said the exact same thing about Trump and Hitlery Clinton. How did _that_ work out for you? You people never learn with your overly-emotional “predictions” 


Dagosa said:


> YOU WILL LOSE at least the senate and probably both because of that one issue.


Bwahahaha!! Ok, Nostradamus. I remember when you low-IQ liberals said the exact same thing about Trump and Hitlery Clinton. How did _that_ work out for you? You people never learn with your overly-emotional “predictions” 


Dagosa said:


> Why do you hate women ? Can’t get laid ? Look in the mirror then.


Why do you _project_? You literally just gave away that you hate women because you can’t get laid


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Ever check  the economy of red states ? They are poorer as a group and destitute.


Well Detroit is a deep-blue city and it had to file for _bankruptcy_. ROTFLMFAO!!!


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> How does that help 10 year old rape victims forced to give birth IN red states. I’m sure you think a 10 year old who needs a child seat in a car is old enough to give birth after a rape. You ignorants are SICK.


Why are you liberals raping 10 year olds?? Stop doing that and this won’t be a problem.

Reminder, the alleged rapist was a *illegal* *alien*. You know, the people you low-IQ liberals keep sneaking into the country to help you steal elections because you know you have absolutely nothing to offer the American people.

Without more failed liberal policy, that little girl never gets “raped” and thus never gets pregnant! Thanks for once again illustrating to the world why nobody should ever vote for Democrats! :laugh!:


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Why are you liberals raping 10 year olds?? Stop doing that and this won’t be a problem.
> 
> Reminder, the alleged rapist was a *illegal* *alien*. You know, the people you low-IQ liberals keep sneaking into the country to help you steal elections because you know you have absolutely nothing to offer the American people.
> 
> Without more failed liberal policy, that little girl never gets “raped” and thus never gets pregnant! Thanks for once again illustrating to the world why nobody should ever vote for Democrats! :laugh!:


It all comes down to non whites doesn’t it ?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Well Detroit is a deep-blue city and it had to file for _bankruptcy_. ROTFLMFAO!!!





P@triot said:


> Well Detroit is a deep-blue city and it had to file for _bankruptcy_. ROTFLMFAO!!!


Hmm.
Since 2010, most cites who filed for bankruptcies, are red state cites. The economy seems so bad in red states, the cities suffer for it. The last time we looked, Detroit wasn’t a state illiterate.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> I absolutely do. I just recognize that she doesn’t have a right to kill someone _else_. And DNA unequivocally *proves* that the baby is a unique and separate life.
> 
> Stop being a science-denying clown. DNA defeated you low-IQ leftists many decades ago
> 
> Nice 3rd grade comment. Very typical of you low-IQ leftists.
> 
> Bwahahaha!! Ok, Nostradamus. I remember when you low-IQ liberals said the exact same thing about Trump and Hitlery Clinton. How did _that_ work out for you? You people never learn with your overly-emotional “predictions”
> 
> Bwahahaha!! Ok, Nostradamus. I remember when you low-IQ liberals said the exact same thing about Trump and Hitlery Clinton. How did _that_ work out for you? You people never learn with your overly-emotional “predictions”
> 
> Why do you _project_? You literally just gave away that you hate women because you can’t get laid


Low IQ liberals ? 
It’s conservatives who don’t believe in climate change, believe in trickle down and are devout Trump the stupid worshiper. Don’t believe in education, law enforcement and the constitution.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> You seem to believe most people in red states work in coal mines. Hence, your label of woefully and terminally misinformed and uneducated. Like I said, you need to get out more and meet some real people.


No, I believe most coal mines are in red states. Rather then make up shit about what people believe, just ask... projectionist.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Ah, yes, the inevitable refuge of the terminally small=minded, that old bugaboo TRUMP! You do know you're describing virtually every small town or rural area in the South, right?


The south, where the highest crime rates are ? Hardly. You keep bringing up Trump the criminal. You worship the orange jump suit he’s going to wear. Lock him up ! Hilarious.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Keep the faith on that, I hear it helps.


All facts. Repugnant run states lead the nation in criminal activity.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> No, I seem to believe you didn’t know much about red states and coal. Hanging with fellow Humpers won’t help you understand shit.


I know that most people don't work in coal mines, I don't care if they live in red or blue states.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> The south, where the highest crime rates are ? Hardly. You keep bringing up Trump the criminal. You worship the orange jump suit he’s going to wear. Lock him up ! Hilarious.


You will never see TRUMP! in a prison jump suit, no matter how many posters you put up on your ceiling.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Not really. Most of the higher crime ridden states are RED.


That's okay, you stay where you feel safe, it would be better for everyone. Wouldn't want you to be fearful all the time now. We know and understand that the vast majority of crime in our area happens in a very few city blocks, while where we live is quite safe, except for the occasional bear, of course.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> All facts. Repugnant run states lead the nation in criminal activity.


The true believer speaks. How far is the fence from your house?

And what is this I keep reading about the impending failure of the California power grid? Something about not charging your car at certain times of day? Better build some more coal fired power plants and for that you're going to need some more mine workers. Better get on that. Oh, that's right, what you want doesn't mean anything to them. Enjoy the dark.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> The true believer speaks. How far is the fence from your house?
> 
> And what is this I keep reading about the impending failure of the California power grid? Something about not charging your car at certain times of day? Better build some more coal fired power plants and for that you're going to need some more mine workers. Better get on that. Oh, that's right, what you want doesn't mean anything to them. Enjoy the dark.


Nothing worse then the people left without power in Texas last year due to the government incompetence. We can play this game of most incompetent between red and blue states…..but you’ll lose, just like all the losers who try to manage the horrible, crime ridden red states.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> That's okay, you stay where you feel safe, it would be better for everyone. Wouldn't want you to be fearful all the time now. We know and understand that the vast majority of crime in our area happens in a very few city blocks, while where we live is quite safe, except for the occasional bear, of course.


Sure it is. That’s why your red  states  Rank poorly in safety.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Nothing worse then the people left without power in Texas last year due to the government incompetence. We can play this game of most incompetent between red and blue states…..but you’ll lose, just like all the losers who try to manage the horrible, crime ridden red states.


Hey, you're the one intent on complaining about states where you don't live. Enjoy the dark this winter and not being allowed to charge up your car.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Sure it is. That’s why your red  states  Rank poorly in safety.


Take out a few city blocks and the states become very safe. Of course, you live in Boyle Heights where it's always safe at night, right?


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> No, I seem to believe you didn’t know much about red states and coal. Hanging with fellow Humpers won’t help you understand shit.


Coal is cheap power.  With srubbers and Precipitators its better than most power in the world on emmissions.  Cheap.  We have a bunch of it.  Go ahead and enjoy your high priced green energy and blavkouts


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> Nothing worse then the people left without power in Texas last year due to the government incompetence. We can play this game of most incompetent between red and blue states…..but you’ll lose, just like all the losers who try to manage the horrible, crime ridden red states.


Texas near Austin went green .  Under capacity unreliable green energy.  Green fail browned out the grid causing damage.

Throw the  green idiots out and restore fossil power


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> Texas near Austin went green .  Under capacity unreliable green energy.  Green fail browned out the grid causing damage.
> 
> Throw the  green idiots out and restore fossil power


Really. You just make up shit and not expect to be held accountable ? Frozen utility PLANTS. 








						'Massive failure': Why are millions of people in Texas still without power?
					

Extreme cold winter weather led to power outages and rolling blackouts in Texas. Here's why it happened.




					www.usatoday.com


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> Coal is cheap power.  With srubbers and Precipitators its better than most power in the world on emmissions.  Cheap.  We have a bunch of it.  Go ahead and enjoy your high priced green energy and blavkouts


Cheap ? BS. How ridiculous is that ! They going to give you the coal for free ? Ha ha
Coal plants cost 30% more to build. Once built non math person, you still have to mine the coal. Most Renewables energy source s are literally FREE after the plant is built !
You must luv black lung.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Hey, you're the one intent on complaining about states where you don't live. Enjoy the dark this winter and not being allowed to charge up your car.


Dark winter ? Charge your car ? When did the tides and rivers stop flowing ? What a fool.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Take out a few city blocks and the states become very safe. Of course, you live in Boyle Heights where it's always safe at night, right?


Eliminate  a few red states, and you could balance the budget and reduce crime. Had to reach for that one. 
.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> Cheap ? BS. How ridiculous is that ! They going to give you the coal for free ? Ha ha
> Coal plants cost 30% more to build. Once built non math person, you still have to mine the coal. Most Renewables energy source s are literally FREE after the plant is built !
> You must luv black lung.


Only because the EPA pushing coal capture from you green freaks.  Got news for you 2 were tried near here.  One failed at great loss.  Orher went billions over and switched to gas.  

Your fantasies dont work


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> Dark winter ? Charge your car ? When did the tides and rivers stop flowing ? What a fool.


You cant keep the grid up already and want to add massive power needs.  You are idiots.  Enjoy the dark


----------



## Dagosa

eagle1462010 said:


> You cant keep the grid up already and want to add massive power needs.  You are idiots.  Enjoy the dark


Sure, says The fool who thinks fossil fuels generators are more reliable then the sun, wind, thermal and hydro power. Ridiculous simpleton ideas. While you doodle bugs are debating, the world has already committed itself to sane green energy. You fools still try to use rotary dial phones ?
Do you still heat with, wood or coal ?

You ever heard of heat pumps ? I’m surprised if you have.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dagosa said:


> Sure, says The fool who thinks fossil fuels generators are more reliable then the sun, wind, thermal and hydro power. Ridiculous simpleton ideas. While you doodle bugs are debating, the world has already committed themselves to sane green energy. You fools still try to use rotary dial phones ?


I dont think they are.  I know they are.


----------



## otto105

hadit said:


> Check again to see who's leaving. You do realize you're just making up stuff to spin it, right?


Who is leaving?

People who live in fire zones?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Hmm.
> Since 2010, most cites who filed for bankruptcies, are red *state* cites.


Bwahahaha!! Look at your propaganda. We’re talking about _cities_. Red states have massive blue cities. Blue states have red cities. It’s just a fact, lying clown.

Tennessee is a red state but shit-hole Memphis is a deep-blue city (which is why it is such a shit-hole )


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Who is leaving?


Everyone who lives in California


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're also experiencing a massive drain of taxpayers, going to, guess where? Red states.
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course. Many of the  low income, poorly educated trailer trash crowd is leaving for red states. Of course. They are all consolidating with the white supremest dufus crowd. Makes sense.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha!!! 

Listen to the extreme desperation and propaganda of Dagosa who is desperately trying to explain away the *failure* of the liberal ideology rather than just admitting that it _is_ a *failed* ideology.

Hey Dagosa? Is ultra-liberal Oracle “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? (Hint: Larry Ellison is one of the wealthiest men in the _world_). Because they left shit-hole California for Texas.

Is Tesla “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? (Hint: Elon Musk is one of the wealthiest men in the _world_). Because they left shit-hole California for Texas.

Is ultra-liberal HP “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? Because they too left shit-hole California for Texas.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Your lower GDP and higher crime rates suck.


Literally all increased crime is in deep-blue cities and states


----------



## talksalot

Timmy said:


> So what state is better ?  Name two .


Texas and Florida


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Everyone who lives in California


Everyone?

Man that's a lot of moving vans.

Can the tx grid sustain that?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Fact. Red states have higher poverty rates.


*Fact:* because of deep-blue shit-hole cities and counties in those beautiful, prospering states.

*Fact: *9 of the 10 poorest counties (and the top 4) are all deep-blue Democrat counties


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Everyone?
> 
> Man that's a lot of moving vans.
> 
> Can the tx grid sustain that?


It’s funny you say that! I came to this thread because I just read that shit-hole California can’t even keep electricity running (like they are some third-world nation) 








						California’s Grid Braces for Failure
					

Biden’s energy secretary touted California’s green energy transition four days before a level 2 energy emergency alert was issued.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Fact,  rime rates are higher on average in red states.


*Fact:* crime rates in blue cities are _infinitely_ higher than red cities. And those blue cities (like Democrat shit-hole Memphis and Democrat shit-hole New Orleans) cause almost 100% of the crime in red states.

Now explain to us why Democrats are so fucking incompetent, they can’t even keep electricity running 








						California’s Grid Braces for Failure
					

Biden’s energy secretary touted California’s green energy transition four days before a level 2 energy emergency alert was issued.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## dudmuck

P@triot said:


> *Fact:* crime rates in blue cities are _infinitely_ higher than red cities. And those blue cities (like Democrat shit-hole Memphis and Democrat shit-hole New Orleans) cause almost 100% of the crime in red states.
> 
> Now explain to us why Democrats are so fucking incompetent, they can’t even keep electricity running
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s Grid Braces for Failure
> 
> 
> Biden’s energy secretary touted California’s green energy transition four days before a level 2 energy emergency alert was issued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


Murder rates were an average of 40% higher in 2020 in the 25 states that Trump carried in the last election, compared to states carried by Biden — and far higher than in "deep blue" states like New York and California, where Republicans have assailed Democratic criminal justice reforms. Instead, the highest murder rates were found in states like Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina and Arkansas — all of which are dominated by Republicans and were won easily by Trump in 2020.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> *Fact:* crime rates in blue cities are _infinitely_ higher than red cities. And those blue cities (like Democrat shit-hole Memphis and Democrat shit-hole New Orleans) cause almost 100% of the crime in red states.
> 
> Now explain to us why Democrats are so fucking incompetent, they can’t even keep electricity running
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s Grid Braces for Failure
> 
> 
> Biden’s energy secretary touted California’s green energy transition four days before a level 2 energy emergency alert was issued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


That’s stupid. The state is responsible for state crimes . Municipal police have NO AUTHORITY to control firearms, drug trade and stolen goods and capital state crimes with persons that go in and out of the cities unabated. It’s all state enforcement.


----------



## Dagosa

dudmuck said:


> Murder rates were an average of 40% higher in 2020 in the 25 states that Trump carried in the last election, compared to states carried by Biden — and far higher than in "deep blue" states like New York and California, where Republicans have assailed Democratic criminal justice reforms. Instead, the highest murder rates were found in states like Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina and Arkansas — all of which are dominated by Republicans and were won easily by Trump in 2020.


yup......the criminals in red states  all support republicans and their support of firearms and free drug flow by their participation in red state criminality.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> *Fact:* crime rates in blue cities are _infinitely_ higher than red cities. And those blue cities (like Democrat shit-hole Memphis and Democrat shit-hole New Orleans) cause almost 100% of the crime in red states.
> 
> Now explain to us why Democrats are so fucking incompetent, they can’t even keep electricity running
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California’s Grid Braces for Failure
> 
> 
> Biden’s energy secretary touted California’s green energy transition four days before a level 2 energy emergency alert was issued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


You mean shit hole ”lousy-Anna”.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! Look at your propaganda. We’re talking about _cities_. Red states have massive blue cities. Blue states have red cities. It’s just a fact, lying clown.
> 
> Tennessee is a red state but shit-hole Memphis is a deep-blue city (which is why it is such a shit-hole )


What a fool you are. Criminals travel unabated and traffic in drugs and firearms in and out of big cities because only the state can enforce inter city violations. You fool, you talk like only a municipality can keep drugs and guns out of their city.....only the state does that. Cities have no authority out of their justiction.  . Poor support and funding by states is the typical reason why crime rates in red states are so high.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!!!
> 
> Listen to the extreme desperation and propaganda of Dagosa who is desperately trying to explain away the *failure* of the liberal ideology rather than just admitting that it _is_ a *failed* ideology.
> 
> Hey Dagosa? Is ultra-liberal Oracle “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? (Hint: Larry Ellison is one of the wealthiest men in the _world_). Because they left shit-hole California for Texas.
> 
> Is Tesla “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? (Hint: Elon Musk is one of the wealthiest men in the _world_). Because they left shit-hole California for Texas.
> 
> Is ultra-liberal HP “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? Because they too left shit-hole California for Texas.


What failure ? Blue states are on average far and away richer, better educated and have mush less crime. Yup, it’s the trailer trash of California that’s leaving for federally supported poorly managed red states so they don’t have to hounded by obeying the law. Yup, the criminals are leaving in droves for trailer parks in Mississippi and lousy-Anna. That’s your claim, right ?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! Look at your propaganda. We’re talking about _cities_. Red states have massive blue cities. Blue states have red cities. It’s just a fact, lying clown.
> 
> Tennessee is a red state but shit-hole Memphis is a deep-blue city (which is why it is such a shit-hole )


You are confused aren’t you ? Get a geography book. The states are responsible for state crimes dufus. Education standards are set by the states. Training for law enforcement is state sponsored and guided. State courts and prisons adjudicate the worse crimes. It all falls down to the red state incompetence. It’s apparent. You don’t even know this shit.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> *Fact:* because of deep-blue shit-hole cities and counties in those beautiful, prospering states.
> 
> *Fact: *9 of the 10 poorest counties (and the top 4) are all deep-blue Democrat counties


That’s bullshit. The only thing we can glean from your post is, Humpers are biggest liars. 95 of the 100 poorest counties were in red states. 

“The median income, we found that 95 of the 100 poorest counties were located in red states. Here are the 10 poorest, all of them in red states: 1.Owsley County, Ky. 2. Jefferson County, Miss. 3. Wolfe County, Ky. 4. Brooks County, Texas 5. McCreary County, Ky.”


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> *Fact:* because of deep-blue shit-hole cities and counties in those beautiful, prospering states.
> 
> *Fact: *9 of the 10 poorest counties (and the top 4) are all deep-blue Democrat counties


Not only don’t you know the difference between cities and states, you now struggle with counties.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Literally all increased crime is in deep-blue cities and states


Texas is among the top 10 worst states in America to live in -- and it ranks high. *Texas came in second on the list of America’s worst places to live in 2021.*


----------



## initforme

California has zero effect on the rest of the states.   So who cares what happens there.  Thankfully what happens in California, Washington, Oregon,  Mississippi, Alabama, soth Carina, north carolina doesn't affect me.   I wouldn't live in any of those states.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!!!
> 
> Listen to the extreme desperation and propaganda of Dagosa who is desperately trying to explain away the *failure* of the liberal ideology rather than just admitting that it _is_ a *failed* ideology.
> 
> Hey Dagosa? Is ultra-liberal Oracle “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? (Hint: Larry Ellison is one of the wealthiest men in the _world_). Because they left shit-hole California for Texas.
> 
> Is Tesla “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? (Hint: Elon Musk is one of the wealthiest men in the _world_). Because they left shit-hole California for Texas.
> 
> Is ultra-liberal HP “low income, poorly educated trailer trash white supremacists”? Because they too left shit-hole California for Texas.


Nope, they left California for Texas so they could pay lower wages…….Texas is the third world state and second worse to live in. They aren’t moving for quality of life. It’s cheap labor.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> What a fool you are. Criminals travel unabated and traffic in drugs and firearms in and out of big cities because only the state can enforce inter city violations. You fool, you talk like only a municipality can keep drugs and guns out of their city.....only the state does that. Cities have no authority out of their justiction.  . Poor support and funding by states is the typical reason why crime rates in red states are so high.


Crime rates are high in a few city blocks while most places are very safe indeed. You don't live in South Central, do you?


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Nope, they left California for Texas so they could pay lower wages…….Texas is the third world state and second worse to live in. They aren’t moving for quality of life. It’s cheap labor.


I keep telling you that those foil helmets you buy off the back page of your comic do not give you mind reading powers, but here we are...


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> I keep telling you that those foil helmets you buy off the back page of your comic do not give you mind reading powers, but here we are...


Spoken like a Humper with no idea what he’s talking about.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Crime rates are high in a few city blocks while most places are very safe indeed. You don't live in South Central, do you?


I don’t live in an effin red state with idiot non science thinking  BS artist.


----------



## Dagosa

initforme said:


> California has zero effect on the rest of the states.   So who cares what happens there.  Thankfully what happens in California, Washington, Oregon,  Mississippi, Alabama, soth Carina, north carolina doesn't affect me.   I wouldn't live in any of those states.


California has a huge affect on the rest of the states. It’s 15% of the entire US Economy for just one thing.
“More than 40 percent of the total containerized cargo entering the U.S. arrives through California ports. And nearly 30 percent of the nation’s exports flow through their ports.
It’s also home to “Silicon Valley” and some of the worlds larger companies including Apple, Google, NetFlix, Twitter, Uber, and Facebook. So it’s home to a whole lotta technical innovation and invention.”


----------



## P@triot

dudmuck said:


> Murder rates were an average of 40% higher in 2020 in the 25 states that Trump carried in the last election, compared to states carried by Biden


Bwahahaha!! You keep saying “states” because every crime-riddled city is a deep-blue Dumbocrat city and _you know it_. Which illustrates two things:

1. You’re a disingenuous political hack

2. You know you support a *failed* ideology but you refuse to change


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The state is responsible for state crimes .


Bwahahaha!! There is no such thing as a “state crime” 

Every crime occurs within a city or county. _Every_ crime.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Municipal police have NO AUTHORITY to control firearms,


Bwahahaha!! So you’re saying New York City PD didn’t implement “stop and frisk” and doesn’t make arrests for someone carrying a firearm?


----------



## P@triot

Seriously folks, I can never tell if a leftist is that ignorant (because they are) or if they are just lying (because they do) 👇


Dagosa said:


> Municipal police have NO AUTHORITY to control firearms


I’m literally fucking _howling_ right now (and so is _everyone_ I sent this to)


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! So you’re saying New York City PD didn’t implement “stop and frisk” and doesn’t make arrests for someone carrying a firearm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 693511


Dufus, stop and frisk outlawed by federal judge in 2013. You have dementia ?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Municipal police have NO AUTHORITY to control firearms, drug trade and stolen goods and capital state crimes with persons that go in and out of the cities unabated. *It’s all state enforcement*.


Really?!? Perhaps you’d like to share with the class what “*state* law *enforcement*” (your word) agency exists to enforce said laws?

That is some next-level funny fuck’n shit right there


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Seriously folks, I can never tell if a leftist is that ignorant (because they are) or if they are just lying (because they do) 👇
> 
> I’m literally fucking _howling_ right now (and so is _everyone_ I sent this to)
> 
> View attachment 693512


So far you’ve made three idiot comments. How stupid are you ?


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Really?!? Perhaps you’d like to share with the class what “*state* law *enforcement*” (your word) agency exists to enforce said laws?
> 
> That is some next-level funny fuck’n shit right there


Dufus, do you DON‘T know the difference between federal, state and local offenses and crimes committed in violation of each ? Are you living under  a fucking rock ?

You're hilarious ! You don’t  even belong in the discussion you’re so ignorant.

I‘ll give you one example idiot. Then you’re on your own. 
Petty theft is not a state crime in most states. So if someone steals a six pack it’s up to local authorities to catch and prosecute, often with help of the country courts. . 

Grand  theft auto MAY BE a state offense dumbo. Then it’s up to the state to prosecute and provide the locals with resources it needs especially if the auto is known moved to a diff  city, county or state…..which could then be a federal crime as well 

Dumbos think locals have the resources to catch, prosecute  and detain auto theft, grand larceny, mail  fraud and murder ? 

You are ignorant. Every state has their own classification of crimes and which ones they assume  responsibility for.


----------



## dudmuck

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! You keep saying “states” because every crime-riddled city is a deep-blue Dumbocrat city and _you know it_. Which illustrates two things:
> 
> 1. You’re a disingenuous political hack
> 
> 2. You know you support a *failed* ideology but you refuse to change











						The Red State Murder Problem – Third Way
					

Third Way is a center-left think tank that champions modern solutions to the most challenging problems in US public policy, including the economy, climate and energy, national security, social policy, and politics.




					www.thirdway.org
				




dont blame me, i'm just the messenger.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Dufus, do you know the difference between state and local crimes ? Are you living under  a rock ?


Snowflake…it was a _simple_ question.
What “*state* law *enforcement*” (your word) agency exists to enforce said laws?

Why can’t you answer it?


----------



## P@triot

dudmuck said:


> The Red State Murder Problem – Third Way
> 
> 
> Third Way is a center-left think tank that champions modern solutions to the most challenging problems in US public policy, including the economy, climate and energy, national security, social policy, and politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thirdway.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont blame me, i'm just the messenger.


You didn’t finish the sentence. “I’m just the messenger….*of propaganda”*.

You’re literally not influencing _anyone_. Everyone knows that the most dangerous places in the United States (Memphis, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc.) are all deep-blue failed Dumbocrat cities.


----------



## P@triot

dudmuck said:


> dont blame me, i'm just the messenger.


Don’t blame me, dudmuck - I’m just the messenger 🤷‍♂️ 

Almost exclusively Democrat cities 








						The most dangerous cities in America, ranked
					

The violent crime rate in the U.S. declined 0.2 percent from 2016 to 2017, the first decline since 2014




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Dufus, stop and frisk outlawed by federal judge in 2013. You have dementia ?


Wait…why did a federal judge need to stop what you claim a city doesn’t do??? 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sto...[B][COLOR=rgb(147, 101, 184)]City[/COLOR][/B]


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! There is no such thing as a “state crime”
> 
> Every crime occurs within a city or county. _Every_ crime.





P@triot said:


> Really?!? Perhaps you’d like to share with the class what “*state* law *enforcement*” (your word) agency exists to enforce said laws?


Sure foolish. The local police call the state law enforcement  agency for help with state services available for crimes that are state offenses. If they are caught, they are arraigned in a state or county court dumbo, as most municipalities DONT HAVE THIER OWN COURTS AND PRISON FACILITIES .


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Municipal police have *NO AUTHORITY* to control firearms... It’s all state enforcement.


Pretty emphatic there, my friend. Would you like to retrace that statement? 





						Stop-and-frisk in New York City - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Why can’t you answer it?


I just did idiot. State law enforcement  will put you in touch with the state attorney general office to determine what support they can give and for what crimes are deemed state offenses. Go take a fking civics course.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> The local police *call the state* law enforcement  agency *for help* with state


Bwahaha!! You’re moving the goalposts _already_ 

From “no authority, exclusively state handled” to “city handles but they call the state for help”


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Pretty emphatic there, my friend. Would you like to retrace that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop-and-frisk in New York City - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Idiot, it has bern unconstitutional since 2013
Now apologize fool.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> I just did idiot.


You haven’t named a _single_ *state* *law* *enforcement* agency 

When will you learn that when you make shit up to defend the indefensible (ie the failed left-wing ideology), it will bite you every time?!?


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Idiot, it has bern unconstitutional since 2013
> Now apologize fool.


Actually snowflake, it was unconstitutional since the US was founded 

But that’s not the point. You claimed local law enforcement couldn’t enforce gun laws


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Municipal police have *NO AUTHORITY* to control firearms


You sure about that, chief?!? 💀💀💀





						Stop-and-frisk in New York City - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




(Good Lord I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time)


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Bwahaha!! You’re moving the goalposts _already_
> 
> From “no authority, exclusively state handled” to “city handles but they call the state for help”


Hey dah…..if some one steals a car and then takes it accross the town line, or commits a murder and walks twenty feet out of town, the city police have no authority except if they see the offense committed . That’s why these offenses are state crimes IDIOT.

hey dumbo, prosecuting   traffic tickets are not often state crimes idiot, so you can’t be prosecuted out of town past city lines, state offense can be with aid of state agencies. ….


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Actually snowflake, it was unconstitutional since the US was founded
> 
> But that’s not the point. You claimed local law enforcement couldn’t enforce gun laws


You are using words and you don’t know wtf you are talking about. You don’t  even know what the differences   are between local, state, county and federal  federal offenses do you ? You Humpers are sad.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Actually snowflake, it was unconstitutional since the US was founded


No non reader, it wasn’t until it was challenged and  a federal court said so. You have no idea what is unconstitutional  do you. You think it’s your opinion….you’re sad.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> You haven’t named a _single_ *state* *law* *enforcement* agency
> 
> When will you learn that when you make shit up to defend the indefensible (ie the failed left-wing ideology), it will bite you every time?!?


Post 2621,
call any state agency, they will put you in touch with state AG and they will tell you what’s available. Dufus, is this too hard ? Should I just spell out S T A T E   POLICE.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> When will you learn that when you make shit up to defend the indefensible (ie the failed left-wing ideology), it will bite you every time?!?


Seriously. You can’t read can you ?


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Spoken like a Humper with no idea what he’s talking about.


I don know your foil helmets don't give you mind reading powers. You don't know what another person is thinking or why they do what they do, unless they tell you, so don't pretend you do.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> I don’t live in an effin red state with idiot non science thinking  BS artist.


You'd probably be safer, and have more secure supplies of electricity. You know, be able to charge that electric car when you want to, not when the bureaucrats say you can. Heck, you might even be able to fill up a swimming pool.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Actually snowflake, it was unconstitutional since the US was founded


So you admit you lied when you said it is used for gun control !
So you’re  a liar then or you didn’t even that police cannot use it for gun control 
. So much for your ethics.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> I don know your foil helmets don't give you mind reading powers. You don't know what another person is thinking or why they do what they do, unless they tell you, so don't pretend you do.


Your little foil helmet comments simply means you were caught lying and making up shit….met your match, again.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> You'd probably be safer, and have more secure supplies of electricity. You know, be able to charge that electric car when you want to, not when the bureaucrats say you can. Heck, you might even be able to fill up a swimming pool.


Bet you are safer with an EV. You can now make your own electricity Non science person. You can’t make your own gasoline….you live in a dream world. Everyone can make electricity……just rub your sneakers on carpeted floor. Gee, that was easy.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Bet you are safer with an EV. You can now make your own electricity Non science person. You can’t make your own gasoline….you live in a dream world. Everyone can make electricity……just rub your sneakers on carpeted floor. Gee, that was easy.


Be sure to send us video of you charging your car like that. Include the gauge on you car that shows the charge rising. Oh, and you can't speed it up, do it real time.

One other thing, make sure you're not in your EV when it catches fire, especially on the interstate. That would be bad.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Your little foil helmet comments simply means you were caught lying and making up shit….met your match, again.


Nope, just pointing out that you don't know why people are leaving California in droves, so you just make up ideas to allow yourself to believe they have a good reason.


----------



## sartre play

That's all because we support political party's. they work for there self's and the big money people who keep them in there jobs, not for us. Just throw us a bone or two so we fight each other, while they feed at the troth of greed.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> *Fact:* because of deep-blue shit-hole cities and counties in those beautiful, prospering states.
> 
> *Fact: *9 of the 10 poorest counties (and the top 4) are all deep-blue Democrat counties


nope, try again.


----------



## otto105

*10 poorest counties in America*

Kentucky: McCreary County.
Mississippi: Holmes County. ...
Alabama: Sumter County. ...
South Carolina: Allendale County. ...
West Virginia: McDowell County. ...
Arkansas: Phillips County. ...
New Mexico: Quay County. ...
Louisiana: Claiborne Parish. ...


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Nope, just pointing out that you don't know why people are leaving California in droves, so you just make up ideas to allow yourself to believe they have a good reason.


And you do know ? All I know are the facts.


hadit said:


> Nope, just pointing out that you don't know why people are leaving California in droves, so you just make up ideas to allow yourself to believe they have a good reason.


You really don’t have a fking clue why some people leave California. It’s just made up shit on your part.

one thing we know for sure, is the gdp per capita has steadily risen every year. So the people who are leaving, are helping the economy of Calif.  by leaving. . Ergo, they should fit right in with the dullards of red states.








						California - Per capita personal income 2021 | Statista
					

In 2021, the per capita personal income in California was 76,386 U.S.




					www.statista.com


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Be sure to send us video of you charging your car like that. Include the gauge on you car that shows the charge rising. Oh, and you can't speed it up, do it real time.
> 
> One other thing, make sure you're not in your EV when it catches fire, especially on the interstate. That would be bad.


I said, you can make your own electricity….what you use it for is up to you.
According to research instead  of made up shit from you, gasoline  powered cars are more likely to catch fire.
geesus, you’re 0-2 in one post. You’re always fking* wrong like the Trumpster.









						Are Electric Cars More Likely to Catch Fire Than Gas Cars?
					

After a number of high-profile Chevy Bolt and Tesla incidents, a legitimate safety concerns has arisen among EV owners




					www.insidehook.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Hey dah…..if some one steals a car and then takes it accross the town line, or commits a murder and walks twenty feet out of town, *the city police have no authority* except if they see the offense committed . *That’s why these offenses are state crimes* IDIOT.


I’m dying. Absolutely _dying_. 

I honestly can’t tell if you’re this uneducated or you just backed yourself into a corner with lies and need to lie more now.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You are using words and you don’t know wtf you are talking about. You don’t  even know what the differences   are between local, state, county and federal  federal offenses do you ? You Humpers are sad.


Still waiting for you to name a _single_ *state* *law* *enforcement* agency


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> nope, try again.


Facts are facts, Chief. You crying “nope” doesn’t change them. 🤷‍♂️








						'A black man telling the truth' calls into C-SPAN to explain why Democrats cannot be trusted to solve violent crime
					

On the issue of crime and "law & order," which party should be trusted: Republicans or Democrats?That was the question C-SPAN posed to viewers recently, receiving more than the network bargained for when a black man who lived in a Democrat-run city for decades made it clear Democrats cannot be...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## P@triot

Democrats are so incompetent, they can’t even keep electricity flowing 

So sad that people like Dagosa and otto105 can’t bring themselves to admit that the left-wing ideology is a *failed* ideology.








						Amid historic heat wave, Los Angeles TV news anchor tweets that 'power just went out' in newsroom. Oil & Gas Workers Association issues perfect response.
					

California's historic heat wave pushed temperatures to all-time record highs across the state Tuesday, including in San Jose (109 degrees) and Sacramento (116 degrees), according to the Weather Channel.                                    A temperature readout at an El Dorado Savings Bank in...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Facts are facts, Chief. You crying “nope” doesn’t change them. 🤷‍♂️
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'A black man telling the truth' calls into C-SPAN to explain why Democrats cannot be trusted to solve violent crime
> 
> 
> On the issue of crime and "law & order," which party should be trusted: Republicans or Democrats?That was the question C-SPAN posed to viewers recently, receiving more than the network bargained for when a black man who lived in a Democrat-run city for decades made it clear Democrats cannot be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com


That doesn't change the fact that 9 of the 10 poorest countries in the US are in red states.

Your offered post only offers one person's opinion.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Democrats are so incompetent, they can’t even keep electricity flowing
> 
> So sad that people like Dagosa and otto105 can’t bring themselves to admit that the left-wing ideology is a *failed* ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amid historic heat wave, Los Angeles TV news anchor tweets that 'power just went out' in newsroom. Oil & Gas Workers Association issues perfect response.
> 
> 
> California's historic heat wave pushed temperatures to all-time record highs across the state Tuesday, including in San Jose (109 degrees) and Sacramento (116 degrees), according to the Weather Channel.                                    A temperature readout at an El Dorado Savings Bank in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com


Dude, just last year the state of texas had some cold weather and the state grid failed killing over 200 people.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Dude, just last year the state of texas had some cold weather and the state grid failed killing over 200 people.


Exactly. A freak/rare weather incident caused an issue.

California on the other hand is _always_ hot in the summer


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> That doesn't change the fact that 9 of the 10 poorest countries in the US are in red states.


And all 9 of them are deep-blue *Democrat* counties

(Excellent self-own my friend  )


----------



## P@triot

If I ran California, it would be the #1 economy in the world (literally more than all 49 other states _combined_). But Democrats and the left-wing ideology are so incompetent, they can’t even keep electricity flowing.  








						California's Energy Grid Is a Mess. Here's How to Fix It.
					

Heritage Foundation energy expert Katie Tubb discusses the pitiful state of California's energy grid, and how to fix it.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

Ever notice how the left advocates 24x7 that the US should be more like China? An oppressive, totalitarian state run by the CCP (Chinese *Communist* Party) with a horrific human-rights record?

Tells you _everything_ you need to know about the extremism of the anti-American left.








						California Pol Says State Should Imitate China, Not Texas, on EV Mandates
					

A member of California’s air quality board says he would prefer his state’s electric vehicle mandates match those of China rather than Texas.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> And you do know ? All I know are the facts.
> 
> You really don’t have a fking clue why some people leave California. It’s just made up shit on your part.
> 
> one thing we know for sure, is the gdp per capita has steadily risen every year. So the people who are leaving, are helping the economy of Calif.  by leaving. . Ergo, they should fit right in with the dullards of red states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California - Per capita personal income 2021 | Statista
> 
> 
> In 2021, the per capita personal income in California was 76,386 U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.statista.com


The bottom line is, people leave California because they are convinced it will be better elsewhere. Interesting that you hold up the rich getting richer as a good thing. How very elitist of you. Tell us, has California managed to balance its budget yet or is it still living on credit?


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> I said, you can make your own electricity….what you use it for is up to you.
> According to research instead  of made up shit from you, gasoline  powered cars are more likely to catch fire.
> geesus, you’re 0-2 in one post. You’re always fking* wrong like the Trumpster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are Electric Cars More Likely to Catch Fire Than Gas Cars?
> 
> 
> After a number of high-profile Chevy Bolt and Tesla incidents, a legitimate safety concerns has arisen among EV owners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.insidehook.com


And I said, show us a video of you charging up your car by walking across the floor in socks. Still waiting to see that marvelous new technique on display. Why, if you got THREE people to walk across the floor in socks, you could run your entire house and not need to depend on the unreliable California electricity production.

Now, as to the fire safety issue, a battery fire is much hotter, much harder to put out, and leaves you less time to get out of the car when it happens. That's not even controversial. At this point, you're just flailing desperately, trying to find something to be right about. Keep trying, it's entertaining.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> And I said, show us a video of you charging up your car by walking across the floor in socks. Still waiting to see that marvelous new technique on display. Why, if you got THREE people to walk across the floor in socks, you could run your entire house and not need to depend on the unreliable California electricity production.
> 
> Now, as to the fire safety issue, a battery fire is much hotter, much harder to put out, and leaves you less time to get out of the car when it happens. That's not even controversial. At this point, you're just flailing desperately, trying to find something to be right about. Keep trying, it's entertaining.


. You can’t read can you ? 
Wow, now you’re worried about the temperature. So you admit you were FOS about EV fires being a bigger problem. Gasoline fires are easier to put out ? Hilarious. Not only are you a fraud, you aren’t even a fireman. 

You were burned twice in one post


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> That's not even controversial.


Not among the ignorant. They fall for this made up shit.


----------



## konradv

miketx said:


> Texas and Texas.


One for the steers and one for the queers?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Now, as to the fire safety issue, a battery fire is much hotter, much harder to put out, and leaves you less time to get out of the car when it happens. That's not even controversial. At this point, you're just flailing desperately, trying to find something to be right about. Keep trying, it's entertaining.


You’re hilarious….so you really sit around  all day and rewrite the laws of Physics ? Gasoline  car fires are much worse and much more likely  then electric car fires.

Your comments are down right stupid.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Why, if you got THREE people to walk across the floor in socks, you could run your entire house and not need to depend on the unreliable California electricity production.


You are one strange dude. How long have you been running around making up shit.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> You are one strange dude. How long have you been running around making up shit.


Hmmm. Apparently to you, "making up shit" is working off what you say, which of course doesn't say good things about what you say.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> Exactly. A freak/rare weather incident caused an issue.
> 
> California on the other hand is _always_ hot in the summer


Hilarious. You don‘t really know how big California is do you ?


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Hmmm. Apparently to you, "making up shit" is working off what you say, which of course doesn't say good things about what you say.


I know there’s a thought in that post……somewhere.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> You’re hilarious….so you really sit around  all day and rewrite the laws of Physics ? Gasoline  car fires are much worse and much more likely  then electric car fires.
> 
> Your comments are down right stupid.


Do a little research on lithium ion battery fires and how easy they are to put out, then come back.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> . You can’t read can you ?
> Wow, now you’re worried about the temperature. So you admit you were FOS about EV fires being a bigger problem. Gasoline fires are easier to put out ? Hilarious. Not only are you a fraud, you aren’t even a fireman.
> 
> You were burned twice in one post


Let's see if I remember correctly, why yes I do. This is what I said. "One other thing, make sure you're not in your EV when it catches fire, especially on the interstate. That would be bad." From that, you got, "So you admit you were FOS about EV fires being a bigger problem". You know, you really do have a reading comprehension problem.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> I know there’s a thought in that post……somewhere.


Keep looking. I'll help you identify a thought when you actually get one.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Do a little research on lithium ion battery fires and how easy they are to put out, then come back.


ha ha, who gives a fk foolish. 
hilarious. Per 100,000 units sold, Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530 FIRES. Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold.

NOW TELL US WHICH IS  THE BIGGEST FIRE PROBLEM.
Ah, may be those 25 are still burning ? What an idiotic argument you just try to make up.


----------



## Theowl32

P@triot said:


> California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?
> 
> Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California


But the Propagandists won't allow the marxist sheep nationwide acknowledge it.

They've won. Been saying the own our culture. I myself have participated in large ways in their crap.

Regrettably I am not a Saint. That is very regrettable to me and suffer from all sorts of addictions or attachments.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> ha ha, who gives a fk foolish.
> hilarious. Per 100,000 units sold, Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530 FIRES. Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold.
> 
> NOW TELL US WHICH IS  THE BIGGEST FIRE PROBLEM.
> Ah, may be those 25 are still burning ? What an idiotic argument you just try to make up.


Oh, you're still pretending that's what I said? I would tell you to go back and read it again, but I know you won't.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Oh, you're still pretending that's what I said? I would tell you to go back and read it again, but I know you won't.


You keep saying what, electric fires are ”harder to put out “. Big fking deal if you have plenty of time to escape. Well, you said they were hotter when gas fires in cars give off  literally, twice the heat over time.

Over two hundred people have been killed in gasoline car fires, care to guess how many people killed in EV fires……try ZERO During the time EVs have been sold of late.

GASOLINE IS A combustible, electricity is not fool, it’s an energy. Gasoline fumes ignites instantly dufus. It takes time for the overheating battery to ignite itself and the material around it. Meanwhile, alarms are going off and like any electric fire, it stinks to high heaven giving any fool, like you, time to exit.

Gasoline fires with the fumes, can literally “explode”  with little warning, just like it’s designed to do in the combustion chamber. Gasoline cars run on controlled ignition, so they are inherently dangerous.

Electric cars run on electromagnetism. You’re arguments  are foolish. Foiled again by science…illiteracy doesn’t help does it.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Exactly. A freak/rare weather incident caused an issue.
> 
> California on the other hand is _always_ hot in the summer


You really think the hot weather and drought California is experiencing is normal?


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_…








						Young California mother beheaded in middle of street, man arrested for homicide
					

On Thursday afternoon in northern California, a 25-year-old mother was beheaded in the street outside her home. A suspect was arrested shortly after the incident, authorities reported.Law enforcement sources told KGO-TV's investigative team that an adult male beheaded a young woman in front of...




					www.theblaze.com


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes _again_…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young California mother beheaded in middle of street, man arrested for homicide
> 
> 
> On Thursday afternoon in northern California, a 25-year-old mother was beheaded in the street outside her home. A suspect was arrested shortly after the incident, authorities reported.Law enforcement sources told KGO-TV's investigative team that an adult male beheaded a young woman in front of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theblaze.com


Worse states to live in...
California is no where to be found.....plenty of reds though. So keep making up shit.








						These 10 states are America's worst places to live in 2022
					

These are the U.S. states with the worst quality of life for residents, based on CNBC’s annual America’s Top State for Business study.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## P@triot

The shit-hole state of California strikes again… 








						California Increases Electrical Demand While Cutting Access to Electricity
					

California is pushing policies to increase electricity demand while simultaneously shutting off access to major sources of electricity.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Worse states to live in...California is no where to be found.....plenty of reds though. So keep making up shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These 10 states are America's worst places to live in 2022
> 
> 
> These are the U.S. states with the worst quality of life for residents, based on CNBC’s annual America’s Top State for Business study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


A propaganda opinion piece has no influence on the intelligent and educated chief.

I’ve filled this thread with facts exposing the *failed* left-wing ideology on display on California. You’ve been unable to dispute any of it (because it’s all 100% accurate).


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Do a little research on lithium ion battery fires and how easy they are to put out, then come back.


Wow, if they were worse, don’t you think more then ZERO people would be dying from them per 100,000 units. You seem to be hung up on lithium battery fires are so hard to put out yet they occur 25 to 100,000 units where gasoline fires are 1500 plus per 100,000. You’re  such a Fix News fool, promoting more death on the highway just so oil companies can cause more carnage. What a twit.Gasoline fires are OBVIOUSLY MORE DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> A propaganda opinion piece has no influence on the intelligent and educated chief.
> 
> I’ve filled this thread with facts exposing the *failed* left-wing ideology on display on California. You’ve been unable to dispute any of it (because it’s all 100% accurate).


You’ve filled this with nothing more then isolated propaganda examples initiated from Fix News propaganda. .....they have nothing to do with the facts. California is no where near as dangerous to live in as a plethora of red states.....get a life, and take a course in math.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> The shit-hole state of California strikes again…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Increases Electrical Demand While Cutting Access to Electricity
> 
> 
> California is pushing policies to increase electricity demand while simultaneously shutting off access to major sources of electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


Heritage foundation bullshit. It’s a fking opinion piece from right wing made up shit.


----------



## Dagosa

P@triot said:


> A propaganda opinion piece has no influence on the intelligent and educated chief.
> 
> I’ve filled this thread with facts exposing the *failed* left-wing ideology on display on California. You’ve been unable to dispute any of it (because it’s all 100% accurate).



You want a fact ? Most of the worse states to live in are red states !


----------



## Dagosa

Safest states to live in......NH, Vermont, Maine, RI, Connecticut.....gee, no red states there


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Safest states to live in......NH, Vermont, Maine, RI, Connecticut.....gee, no red states there


And what is common among those states? See any major urban centers there? Take a few city blocks out of the equation and all of a sudden a state is very safe to live in. Heck, I live some 30 miles from what used to be the murder capital of the US and it's quite safe. Basically, get out of the leftwing lunacy of the inner cities into the sanity of the rural areas and the danger factor falls off a cliff.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Heritage foundation bullshit. It’s a fking opinion piece from right wing made up shit.


You're blindly swinging at a pinata if you think it's opinion that California is simultaneously increasing demand for electricity while not providing enough to meet the demand. But that's okay, I'm sure no one will notice you're not posting when the rolling blackouts hit your area.


----------



## hadit

Dagosa said:


> Wow, if they were worse, don’t you think more then ZERO people would be dying from them per 100,000 units. You seem to be hung up on lithium battery fires are so hard to put out yet they occur 25 to 100,000 units where gasoline fires are 1500 plus per 100,000. You’re  such a Fix News fool, promoting more death on the highway just so oil companies can cause more carnage. What a twit.Gasoline fires are OBVIOUSLY MORE DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC.


Yeah, lithium battery fires ARE very hard to put out and DO burn extremely hot. You seem determined to ignore that.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> Yeah, lithium battery fires ARE very hard to put out and DO burn extremely hot. You seem determined to ignore that.


I’m not ignoring it at all. But lithium battery based fires from EVs ARE NOT  as frequent  as gasoline fires from ICE cars. Geesus man. Something that happens 25 out of 100,000  times with no deaths vs 1500 out of 100,000 with hundreds of deaths, it’s obvious which is the bigger danger to the public. Maybe you’re blind.


----------



## Dagosa

hadit said:


> And what is common among those states? See any major urban centers there? Take a few city blocks out of the equation and all of a sudden a state is very safe to live in. Heck, I live some 30 miles from what used to be the murder capital of the US and it's quite safe. Basically, get out of the leftwing lunacy of the inner cities into the sanity of the rural areas and the danger factor falls off a cliff.


What ? They all have urban  centers. _Hartford, ManChester etc. are all urban centers. Surprise ! Unban centers all have more frequent crimes of some types simply because more opportunity and proximity breeds it. That’s no great news.

But, the severe crimes in all states are more often STATE CRIMES which are the responsibility of the state authorities in those cities. Get real. Maybe you don’t know the difference.
Overall, it seems democratically controlled states have fewer crimes per capita then red states…..which by your logic they should not.  
BTW, your personal experience means shit when the collective data reveals otherwise.m_


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You’ve filled this with nothing more then *isolated* propaganda *examples*


Bwahahaha!! If if were “propaganda” it *wouldn’t* be “isolated examples” (it would be a comprehensive onslaught because that’s how propaganda works). 

You literally just committed a Freudian Slip. You _know_ everything I’ve posted is 100% accurate fact and you just let it slip!


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Heritage foundation bullshit. It’s a fking opinion piece from right wing made up shit.


Bwahahaha!! It’s *not* an “opinion” - California is simultaneously forcing the increase of electrical demand while shutting down sources of electricity.

Your panic over basic facts is palpable.


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> You want a fact ? Most of the worse states to live in are red states !


That’s not a “fact” at all. That’s the result of you being a lazy liberal and being upset that red states didn’t give you handouts in exchange for your vote (and your freedom) like failed blue states do 🤷‍♂️


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Safest states to live in......NH, Vermont, Maine, RI, Connecticut.....gee, no red states there


No red states there because it’s 100% propaganda from a pathological *liar*  

There’s a reason you have absolutely no citation in your post. It’s because one cannot cite what they make up. Deep-red Idaho is rated as the #3 safest state in the US (see below).








			https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/10-safest-states-in-america


----------



## P@triot

Dagosa said:


> Safest states to live in......NH, Vermont, Maine, RI, Connecticut.....gee, no red states there


Furthermore, there is a reason you keep using states - it’s because it helps masks Democrat failures (since _every_ blue state has Republicans running cities and counties as well - which helps reduce the failures of Democrats, and every red state has Dumbocrats running cities and counties as well - dragging down the successes of Republicans).

Let’s drill down to _cities_ where you can’t hide, Dagosa.

Well I’ll be damned! What do you know! 100% of the 10 most dangerous cities in the US are *all* run by Democrats and infested with Dumbocrat voters! 








						The Most Dangerous Cities In The US
					

Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore have the highest violent crime rates in the US, with several other cities following close behind.




					www.worldatlas.com


----------



## P@triot

Gavin Newsome promised to end homelessness in 10 years…14 years ago 

The result? Homelessness has absolutely exploded in his shit-hole state (and in his shit-hole city where he made the promise) while he wasted and embezzled billions and billions of tax payer dollars.

Vintage Democrat modus operandi - make a promise in exchange for the freedom and the money of the people, fail miserably to deliver on that promise, but keep the money and liberty of the citizens you fucked over.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.








						Newsom's 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness Sounds Great - But This Video Is from 2008
					

Gavin Newsom outlined his comprehensive plan to end chronic homelessness in California - in a video 14 years ago.




					www.thegatewaypundit.com


----------



## P@triot

The Democrats are an absolute embarrassment to the United States 🤦‍♂️








						‘Bullet’ Train to Nowhere Is Emblematic of California’s Political Dysfunction
					

The rail project was expected to cost $33 billion, with completion in 2020. The price tag is now $113 billion. Completion? Anybody's guess.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------

