California embodies left-wing misery

[Nostra]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

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.

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.

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.

You need valid arguments not merely the fallacy of diversion because you have no Point and no valid argument to Prove it.

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]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why do you believe our common defense clause can be used like a general defense clause but not our general welfare clause?

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]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause. Our welfare clause is general not common. Any questions?

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.

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.

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]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

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.

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.

Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".

 

[danielpalos]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

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.

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.

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.

You need valid arguments not merely the fallacy of diversion because you have no Point and no valid argument to Prove it.

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.

Still not dumb enough for the right wing?

 

[hadit]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

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.

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.

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.

You need valid arguments not merely the fallacy of diversion because you have no Point and no valid argument to Prove it.

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.

Still not dumb enough for the right wing?

And the pigeon takes another lap around the chess board.

 

[danielpalos]

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]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause. Our welfare clause is general not common. Any questions?

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.

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.

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.

general Welfare of the United States

It does not say common welfare of the United States.

 

[hadit]

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?

Then post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that show defense is less important than welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

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.

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.

Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".

The term general defines it if we have to quibble. Want to argue and quibble about it?

 

[Nostra]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

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.

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.

Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".

Actually, it requires just the opposite according to the Founders.

 

[Nostra]

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?

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]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause. Our welfare clause is general not common. Any questions?

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.

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.

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.

general Welfare of the United States

It does not say common welfare of the United States.

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]

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?

Then post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that show defense is less important than welfare.

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]

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?

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.

If a general clause can't do it, why do you believe a common clause can?

 

[danielpalos]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause. Our welfare clause is general not common. Any questions?

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.

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.

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.

general Welfare of the United States

It does not say common welfare of the United States.

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.

Our Constitution is our actual supreme law of the land. It is express not implied by right wing fantasy.

 

[hadit]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause. Our welfare clause is general not common. Any questions?

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.

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.

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.

general Welfare of the United States

It does not say common welfare of the United States.

You really don't listen, do you?

 

[hadit]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

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.

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.

Show us where the Constitution requires "top down solutions".

The term general defines it if we have to quibble. Want to argue and quibble about it?

Show where the writers of the Constitution required "top down solutions".

 

[hadit]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause. Our welfare clause is general not common. Any questions?

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.

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.

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.

general Welfare of the United States

It does not say common welfare of the United States.

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.

Our Constitution is our actual supreme law of the land. It is express not implied by right wing fantasy.

What do you think that really means?

 

[danielpalos]

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

General welfare must include anything and everything that will promote it.

You said “general warfare”. Don’t change the subject because I just owned you again, China troll.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

He claims he knows more about the Constitution than those who wrote it. And to prove it he posts "express" four thousand times.

Y'all only know how to be frivolous and full of Hoax not provide any valid arguments or coherent lines of reasoning.

And the pigeon takes another turn around the board, loudly proclaiming victory.

We don't have a general defense clause, it is a common defense clause. Our welfare clause is general not common. Any questions?

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.

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.

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.

general Welfare of the United States

It does not say common welfare of the United States.

You really don't listen, do you?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the words used in our Constitution. Any dictionary will do for definitions. Any questions?