California embodies left-wing misery

[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?

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

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]

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".

using the word and term, General infers it. They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.

 

[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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

You miss the point. Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.

 

[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".

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".

using the word and term, General infers it. They did not use the term common in regard to 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.

 

[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.

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 quote our supreme law of the land. Only right wingers are illegal enough to appeal to ignorance of it.

 

[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?

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.

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 quote our supreme law of the land. Only right wingers are illegal enough to appeal to ignorance of 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.

 

[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?

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

using the word and term, General infers it. They did not use the term common in regard to 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.

Our welfare clause is general enough to promote the general welfare by solving simple poverty.

 

[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".

using the word and term, General infers it. They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.

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]

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".

using the word and term, General infers it. They did not use the term common in regard to the general welfare.

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.

You appeal to ignorance of any dictionary. I have valid arguments not just excuses and bigotry.

 

[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?

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

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.

You miss the point. Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.

They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.

 

[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?

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.

You miss the point. Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.

They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.

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]

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?

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.

You miss the point. Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.

They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.

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

How does that relate to the terms "general" and "common" and their relative importance?

 

[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?

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.

You miss the point. Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.

They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.

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

How does that relate to the terms "general" and "common" and their relative importance?

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]

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".

using the word and term, General infers it. They did not use the term common in regard to 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.

Our welfare clause is general enough to promote the general welfare by solving simple poverty.

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]

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?

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.

You miss the point. Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land not their opinions.

They wrote it, goofy. Their opinions about what the words mean are authoritative, whereas yours are irrelevant.

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

How does that relate to the terms "general" and "common" and their relative importance?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.