A great advert for Socialism

[emilynghiem]

National Defense IS a Constitutional expenditure. It does need to be reigned in to a certain degree as much of it goes to defend places other thsn the US, but ddfense spend g I. General is at least Constitutional.

Yes, the general welfare is Constitutional the general warfare is not. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.
Other people have equal right as you do to say they agree with general welfare
but not with federal health care. For example danielpalos
conservative believers can argue it's better for general welfare to protect
free market health care from manipulation by EITHER corporations or by politicians in govt!

So that interpretation of "general welfare" could mean
govt protecting EQUAL CHOICE of funding EITHER public/govt health care
and choosing that, OR funding free market health care and choosing THAT.

So your interpretation of general welfare meaning govt health care only
covers half as much as people who interpret
general welfare to mean protecting free market health care AND the
choice of govt health care, not just imposing yours as the only choice.

2. you still haven't addressed the part of the constitutional
laws that ALSO INCLUDES not depriving citizens of liberty without due process.

danielpalos do you agree that both are in the same Constitutional laws?

a. both general welfare
b. and protecting individual liberty or free choice of people
where these are NOT deprived without due process of laws

That's fine if you want to pass laws that address A
but the laws can't violate B or that's still violating Constitutional laws elsewhere

does that make sense to you?
I already compared it to Roe V Wade.
It was ONE thing to want to protect against harm by barring abortion.
But the laws criminalizing this could NOT be justified or enforced
because they violated DUE PROCESS of individuals.

another example:
laws that allow people free speech and free exercise of religion
can't be abused to where protestors at clinics or funerals
OBSTRUCT and ABRIDGE the right of people
Peaceably to assemble

So this is another example of how you can't enforce one
law in a way that violates another constitutional law or principle

Do these two examples help?

 

[emilynghiem]

National Defense IS a Constitutional expenditure. It does need to be reigned in to a certain degree as much of it goes to defend places other thsn the US, but ddfense spend g I. General is at least Constitutional.

Yes, the general welfare is Constitutional the general warfare is not. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress,
for that Purpose.

Dear danielpalos
You still have to include FREE CHOICE in that equation for health care.

Christianity also promotes the general welfare,
but people have to have FREE CHOICE in belief and practice of that, too.

same with health care choices where people have different beliefs.

Otherwise DP you end up with health care that bans abortion
because other people decided that isn't good for the general welfare.

People don't agree on beliefs about health care including reproductive health choices.
So that's why you can't just expect to legislate this through federal govt.
Federal govt is required to represent all 300 plus people in all 50 states.

So if half those people believe general welfare means free market health care,
then that half is going to keep blocking your belief that general welfare
means govt run health care.

So to accommodate both beliefs, that's why I'm saying
to separate choices and let taxpayers choose which approach to fund.

You wouldn't want Constitutionalists or Christians
deciding "general welfare" means conservative solutions
and imposing that on everyone just because they believe it works best.

You'd say the same thing, and ask them to fund their own beliefs
and let you and me fund ours!

So that freedom of choice is what everyone wants for themselves
and is part of general welfare, do you agree? That nobody
wants another group to take general welfare and abuse that
to impose their ideas or agenda on everyone else through govt
without first respecting our consent or free choice in the matter.

Right?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the general welfare is Constitutional the general warfare is not. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it isn't? Providing for the general welfare is a general power just like providing for the common defense.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Another is Venezuela. And North Korea.

Norway is not a Socialist nation, they have just re-elected the Right-Wing government, OP is ignorant as usual, Britain is fucked and always has had a thing for Socialism so they think everything is Socialist. Shocking that the OP does not hate Norway considering it's 98% White and Norwegian and rejects turning itself into Africa mixed with Pakistan like Britain has decided to turn itself into.

Erna Solberg has been Prime Minister for four years and has just been re elected, her party Høyre the Conservatives have been in a Coalition with the Right-Wing Nationalists Fremskrittspartiet for four years, they are going to have another Coalition for another four years and probably include in the new one Venstre who are Centrist and I think also the KrF who are the Christian Peoples Party and they are Centre-Right, I think a good thing for Erna Solberg to widen this Coalition as it further reduces the Labour Party and the Socialist Left to pointless to prevent any Government policy passing in the Storting - the Norwegian Parliament.

I know more about Norway and the system in Norway, being married to a Norwegian and the first year we got married we basically lived the whole year in Trondheim and also Mr. Lucy's brother works IN the Norwegian Right-Wing Government being the Private Secretary to a Government Minister.

The future on most of this Continent is Right-Wing, young peoples are rejecting Leftism and we have Generation Z getting to voting age in several years and they are even more Right-Wing than Millennials like me.

 

[Markle]

I think its because you do not understand that there is a difference between socialism and communism. And of course you are really stupid.

“My definition of a Socialist is a Communist who hasn't amassed
enough power to nationalize your stuff, while promising
to give you other people's stuff."

 

[danielpalos]

I think its because you do not understand that there is a difference between socialism and communism. And of course you are really stupid.

“My definition of a Socialist is a Communist who hasn't amassed
enough power to nationalize your stuff, while promising
to give you other people's stuff."

Unlike the right wing, who promise the rich will get richer faster, because they are "worth it" under any form of Capitalism.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Norway only has a population of 5 million.
It’s a very small country.
There are many counties in America with larger populations.
It makes it easy to be socialist with a small population that is almost all the same race and religion.
Norway is not weighted down with millions of worthless freeloader Democrats like America is.
But as Norway becomes filled with Muslim immigrants it's prosperity will wain.

 

[danielpalos]

Norway only has a population of 5 million.
It’s a very small country.
There are many counties in America with larger populations.
It makes it easy to be socialist with a small population that is almost all the same race and religion.
Norway is not weighted down with millions of worthless freeloader Democrats like America is.
But as Norway becomes filled with Muslim immigrants it's prosperity will wain.

Our alleged, right wing wars on (fill in the blank) are more expensive.

 

[emilynghiem]

Please read the U.S. Constitution. Your ignorance of the document is embarrassing.

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it isn't? Providing for the general welfare is a general power just like providing for the common defense.

Okay danielpalos I see that you interpret "common defense" not to include warfare, because it doesn't say "warfare" it says "common defense": can we agree this is like "general welfare" doesn't say "healthcare" it says "general welfare".

Is this a fair statement to you:
1. "common defense" <not equal to> "warfare"
2. "general welfare" <not equal to> "healthcare"

You didn't respond to the Constitionsl Articles that specify Congress has authority to declare "WAR" spelled out "W-A-R". Can you find any article that specific that says "H-E-A-L-T-H-C-A-R-E" alongside saying "W-A-R".

Note: you may think these words don't mean anything to you, but in terms of contracts and enforcing laws this makes a huge difference. danielpalos a legal team won a lawsuit against Obama spending money that required Congress to approve and authorize first but this wasn't donr, that was stated in the laws IN WRITING or else they never would have won their arguments and case against ACA. The courts and govt were biased heavily toward defending Obama and ACA, so only the most specific arguments IN WRITING could win. This make a HUGE difference legally especially in courts. Anything arbitrary as you are saying isn't guaranteed to be enforced. That's why Constitutional Amendments are legally necessary so this is in writing.

danielpalos you remind me of the proverbial student asking the professor in medical school to get credit on a test question where the answer was only off by a fraction or decimals and seemed "close enough". The professor said sorry, the student still failed the test, because "the patient would be DEAD."

 

[danielpalos]

I have. I don't resort to fallacy, like the right wing. I am not infidel, protestant, or renegade to the federal doctrine, unlike the right wing.

There is no general warfare clause. There is a general welfare clause.

Both affect, Individuals.

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it isn't? Providing for the general welfare is a general power just like providing for the common defense.

Okay danielpalos I see that you interpret "common defense" not to include warfare, because it doesn't say "warfare" it says "defense": can see this is like "general welfare" doesn't say "healthcare" .

You didn't respond to the articles that specify Congress has authority to declare WAR. Can you find any article that specific that says HEALTHCARE alongside saying WAR.

dear, general means comprehensive; every Thing must be considered. Healthcare reform should provide for the general welfare.

Common means what is common to the defense of the States. You may compare and contrast that to the powers not delegated to Congress, such as, to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it isn't? Providing for the general welfare is a general power just like providing for the common defense.

Okay danielpalos I see that you interpret "common defense" not to include warfare, because it doesn't say "warfare" it says "defense": can see this is like "general welfare" doesn't say "healthcare" .

You didn't respond to the articles that specify Congress has authority to declare WAR. Can you find any article that specific that says HEALTHCARE alongside saying WAR.

dear, general means comprehensive; every Thing must be considered. Healthcare reform should provide for the general welfare.

Common means what is common to the defense of the States. You may compare and contrast that to the powers not delegated to Congress, such as, to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

Dear danielpalos
Who decides what is included in general?

Can you answer my previous posts:
1. What about Christian's who can prove medically that abortion is bad for the general welfare, and preventing pregnancy is better healthwise than abortion. So does that mean govt can mandate prevention instead of abortion because some people just like you believe it should be included.

What determines if the Prolife Christian beliefs about general welfare can be mandated by govt ? Doesn't that require a vote of the people so others like you and me can disagree and not allow individuals to impose laws preventing or banning abortion as "comprehensive protection under general welfare"

2. Note : if you believe freedom of choice is important to defend as part of general welfare and Constitutional rights and liberties, the same applies to health care in general - this doesn't preclude but includes freedom of choice. Do you agree you want your freedom of choice to be protected from other ppl passing/enforcing laws you don't agree belong in govt, just because those ppl argue it's part of general welfare.

You are assuming all ppl agree with your beliefs. If you aren't required to agree with Prolife beliefs why are you assuming ppl should be required to agree with your health care beliefs?

Why should the govt violate free exercise of religion by enforcing your beliefs on others against theirs, while protecting you from them imposing their beliefs through govt on you.

Why the discrimination where you expect govt to break Constitional laws to impose YOUR beliefs as an exception to the laws against Everyone Else from doing this?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Chuz Life
Here we have danielpalos who believes general welfare inherently includes health care. But says common defense doesn't include warfare.

Can you pls read the past few posts and make the argument that anyone like you should be able to argue general welfare means not aborting babies. So if no laws are needed to specify how this is applied, people like you and danielpalos can just declare that's what it means and you can use govt to impose and make other ppl pay for your programs you call general welfare.

If you had the same authority to make ppl pay for health care by calling it general welfare, can you describe to DP what you would enact to prevent abortion and make all citizens comply and pay for it because it counts as govt promoting the general welfare.

Can you pls spell this out for DP what you would impose and expect taxpayers to follow enforce and pay for through govt? Apparently DP believes general welfare means comprehensive care including health care. So what would you include in general welfare?

 

[emilynghiem]

Why does the right wing support warfare spending that affects Individuals but not welfare spending that helps Individuals?

Real Conservatives do not support ANY welfare spending... Corporate, Personal, International, Disaster, at al...

then why do they support warfare spending?

Try reading the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

Providing for the general warfare is not in our federal Constitution.

Dear danielpalos
1. I bet you 10 million dollars that Constituional law is taken seriously. If you win the bet you can use 10 million to set up sustainable health care mandated through govt just using general welfare and not requiring consent of states or taxpayers voting on or amending that first. If I'm right that political beliefs like yours can't be mandated through govt without consent of the people affected especially those of conflicting beliefs or it violates either Constitional laws ethics principles or beliefs, then you have to work with Obama pelosi and judge Roberts to raise and pay 10 million to correct Unconstitutional health care legislation that didn't respect protect or represent the public equally but discriminated against and or penalized people on the basis of Creed .

2. You still didn't answer the point I've posted 3 times now: since the Constitution specifies IN Writing that Congress has authority to declare W-A-R where does it say that about HEALTHCARE.

Can you explain why you deny the govt authority in WAR when it says WAR in writing while arguing disproportionately for HEALTHCARE that isn't stated IN WRITING.

All you've stated is your beliefs and your definitions that aren't spelled out IN WRITING like WAR is.

So if you can interpret WAR to mean something else besides warfare, doesn't that show how other people don't use general welfare to mean healthcare as you see and use it to mean.

Which two terms are more literally aligned in meaning
1 Congress declaring "WAR" which you argue doesn't mean literally "warfare"
2. General welfare which half the nation disagrees with you in equating that with comprehensive health care through govt

If you mean there is still "free choice" in declaring war which means we can choose not to engage in warfare through govt,
Why isn't this applied to "free choice in health care' where it doesn't have to be mandated by govt either?

Why don't you respect free choice as part of general welfare?
Because if you think your beliefs about health care are more important than protecting free choice of individuals, what's to stop Prolife beliefs and advocates like Chuz Life
Or other Christian's who save lives for free through spiritual healing from imposing THAT through govt as part of promoting general welfare and safer better health care?

 

[emilynghiem]

Norway only has a population of 5 million.
It’s a very small country.
There are many counties in America with larger populations.
It makes it easy to be socialist with a small population that is almost all the same race and religion.
Norway is not weighted down with millions of worthless freeloader Democrats like America is.
But as Norway becomes filled with Muslim immigrants it's prosperity will wain.

Our alleged, right wing wars on (fill in the blank) are more expensive.

And we could compel reimbursement to the public for all Unconstitutional govt spending wasting tax money danielpalos if you will please unite with progressives and libertarians and workers from left and right on ENFORCING the Constitution instead of skirting it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear danielpalos

1. the general welfare does not specify health care

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it isn't? Providing for the general welfare is a general power just like providing for the common defense.

Okay danielpalos I see that you interpret "common defense" not to include warfare, because it doesn't say "warfare" it says "defense": can see this is like "general welfare" doesn't say "healthcare" .

You didn't respond to the articles that specify Congress has authority to declare WAR. Can you find any article that specific that says HEALTHCARE alongside saying WAR.

dear, general means comprehensive; every Thing must be considered. Healthcare reform should provide for the general welfare.

Common means what is common to the defense of the States. You may compare and contrast that to the powers not delegated to Congress, such as, to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

And what's to stop Prolife and Christian believers from interpreting comprehensive general welfare to mean prayer in schools and spiritual healing for all ppl that's been shown to reduce crime violence abuse addiction and disease for FREE to saves lives health money and promote the general welfare?

I've cc to Chuz Life on this thread.
If you are okay with everyone passing laws and making it okay for govt to force you to pay for anything deemed to be better for public health and general welfare, then I'll work with you and Chuz Life to make sure you pay for those policies you preach!

 

[Chuz Life]

Dear Chuz Life
Here we have danielpalos who believes general welfare inherently includes health care. But says common defense doesn't include warfare.

Can you pls read the past few posts and make the argument that anyone like you should be able to argue general welfare means not aborting babies. So if no laws are needed to specify how this is applied, people like you and danielpalos can just declare that's what it means and you can use govt to impose and make other ppl pay for your programs you call general welfare.

If you had the same authority to make ppl pay for health care by calling it general welfare, can you describe to DP what you would enact to prevent abortion and make all citizens comply and pay for it because it counts as govt promoting the general welfare.

Can you pls spell this out for DP what you would impose and expect taxpayers to follow enforce and pay for through govt? Apparently DP believes general welfare means comprehensive care including health care. So what would you include in general welfare?

I am on a self imposed break from USMB but since you asked. I think you are both full of shit in different ways.

DAN doesn't have a clue about the Constitution and that is evidenced by the way he interprets "promote the general welfare" as "provide for. . . "

YOU don't have a clue about ME personally.

 

[danielpalos]

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it isn't? Providing for the general welfare is a general power just like providing for the common defense.

Okay danielpalos I see that you interpret "common defense" not to include warfare, because it doesn't say "warfare" it says "defense": can see this is like "general welfare" doesn't say "healthcare" .

You didn't respond to the articles that specify Congress has authority to declare WAR. Can you find any article that specific that says HEALTHCARE alongside saying WAR.

dear, general means comprehensive; every Thing must be considered. Healthcare reform should provide for the general welfare.

Common means what is common to the defense of the States. You may compare and contrast that to the powers not delegated to Congress, such as, to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

Dear danielpalos
Who decides what is included in general?

Can you answer my previous posts:
1. What about Christian's who can prove medically that abortion is bad for the general welfare, and preventing pregnancy is better healthwise than abortion. So does that mean govt can mandate prevention instead of abortion because some people just like you believe it should be included.

What determines if the Prolife Christian beliefs about general welfare can be mandated by govt ? Doesn't that require a vote of the people so others like you and me can disagree and not allow individuals to impose laws preventing or banning abortion as "comprehensive protection under general welfare"

2. Note : if you believe freedom of choice is important to defend as part of general welfare and Constitutional rights and liberties, the same applies to health care in general - this doesn't preclude but includes freedom of choice. Do you agree you want your freedom of choice to be protected from other ppl passing/enforcing laws you don't agree belong in govt, just because those ppl argue it's part of general welfare.

You are assuming all ppl agree with your beliefs. If you aren't required to agree with Prolife beliefs why are you assuming ppl should be required to agree with your health care beliefs?

Why should the govt violate free exercise of religion by enforcing your beliefs on others against theirs, while protecting you from them imposing their beliefs through govt on you.

Why the discrimination where you expect govt to break Constitional laws to impose YOUR beliefs as an exception to the laws against Everyone Else from doing this?

Congress and the Courts decide. It is still a general power. It is not a major or common power, like the power to provide for the common defense.

Whatever you believe may be justified for the common defense, must be even more comprehensive for the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear Chuz Life
Here we have danielpalos who believes general welfare inherently includes health care. But says common defense doesn't include warfare.

Can you pls read the past few posts and make the argument that anyone like you should be able to argue general welfare means not aborting babies. So if no laws are needed to specify how this is applied, people like you and danielpalos can just declare that's what it means and you can use govt to impose and make other ppl pay for your programs you call general welfare.

If you had the same authority to make ppl pay for health care by calling it general welfare, can you describe to DP what you would enact to prevent abortion and make all citizens comply and pay for it because it counts as govt promoting the general welfare.

Can you pls spell this out for DP what you would impose and expect taxpayers to follow enforce and pay for through govt? Apparently DP believes general welfare means comprehensive care including health care. So what would you include in general welfare?

yes, general welfare and common defense. there is no general warfare clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Norway only has a population of 5 million.
It’s a very small country.
There are many counties in America with larger populations.
It makes it easy to be socialist with a small population that is almost all the same race and religion.
Norway is not weighted down with millions of worthless freeloader Democrats like America is.
But as Norway becomes filled with Muslim immigrants it's prosperity will wain.

Our alleged, right wing wars on (fill in the blank) are more expensive.

And we could compel reimbursement to the public for all Unconstitutional govt spending wasting tax money danielpalos if you will please unite with progressives and libertarians and workers from left and right on ENFORCING the Constitution instead of skirting it.

You mean like our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

 

[danielpalos]

Healthcare reform does promote the general welfare; providing for the general welfare is a Power delegated to Congress, for that Purpose.

1. That's your interpretation but it's not specified by that law.

Yes, it is. Why do you believe it isn't? Providing for the general welfare is a general power just like providing for the common defense.

Okay danielpalos I see that you interpret "common defense" not to include warfare, because it doesn't say "warfare" it says "defense": can see this is like "general welfare" doesn't say "healthcare" .

You didn't respond to the articles that specify Congress has authority to declare WAR. Can you find any article that specific that says HEALTHCARE alongside saying WAR.

dear, general means comprehensive; every Thing must be considered. Healthcare reform should provide for the general welfare.

Common means what is common to the defense of the States. You may compare and contrast that to the powers not delegated to Congress, such as, to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

And what's to stop Prolife and Christian believers from interpreting comprehensive general welfare to mean prayer in schools and spiritual healing for all ppl that's been shown to reduce crime violence abuse addiction and disease for FREE to saves lives health money and promote the general welfare?

I've cc to Chuz Life on this thread.
If you are okay with everyone passing laws and making it okay for govt to force you to pay for anything deemed to be better for public health and general welfare, then I'll work with you and Chuz Life to make sure you pay for those policies you preach!

Your special pleading.