Cons say the government doesn't create jobs....

[rightwinger]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

No, it doesn't mean what YOU interpret it to mean. Madison (who wrote it) totally disagrees with your interpretation. He explained how it is ludicrous to think it means what you claim.

Congress does not have the power to "do what needs doing" unless it falls under one of the several enumerated powers of Congress. If it's not in Article 1 Section 8, it is up to the states and people respectively.

Now, has the LIBERAL court ruled according to YOUR definition? Sure they have and they were WRONG! Just as they were WRONG to determine slaves were property and segregation was appropriate.

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong




.

 

[Contumacious]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

It depends on how the job was "created"


If PRIVATE industry is encouraged to create a job then is a good thing.


If the job was created by stealing (taxing) then the job is not a good thing.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

No, it doesn't mean what YOU interpret it to mean. Madison (who wrote it) totally disagrees with your interpretation. He explained how it is ludicrous to think it means what you claim.

Congress does not have the power to "do what needs doing" unless it falls under one of the several enumerated powers of Congress. If it's not in Article 1 Section 8, it is up to the states and people respectively.

Now, has the LIBERAL court ruled according to YOUR definition? Sure they have and they were WRONG! Just as they were WRONG to determine slaves were property and segregation was appropriate.

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong




.

No it doesn't. The court is a gang of political hacks hand picked to render the desired decisions.

 

[rightwinger]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

No, it doesn't mean what YOU interpret it to mean. Madison (who wrote it) totally disagrees with your interpretation. He explained how it is ludicrous to think it means what you claim.

Congress does not have the power to "do what needs doing" unless it falls under one of the several enumerated powers of Congress. If it's not in Article 1 Section 8, it is up to the states and people respectively.

Now, has the LIBERAL court ruled according to YOUR definition? Sure they have and they were WRONG! Just as they were WRONG to determine slaves were property and segregation was appropriate.

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong




.

No it doesn't. The court is a gang of political hacks hand picked to render the desired decisions.

In case you missed it, the court is a part of the Constitution

 

[bripat9643]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

No, it doesn't mean what YOU interpret it to mean. Madison (who wrote it) totally disagrees with your interpretation. He explained how it is ludicrous to think it means what you claim.

Congress does not have the power to "do what needs doing" unless it falls under one of the several enumerated powers of Congress. If it's not in Article 1 Section 8, it is up to the states and people respectively.

Now, has the LIBERAL court ruled according to YOUR definition? Sure they have and they were WRONG! Just as they were WRONG to determine slaves were property and segregation was appropriate.

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong




.

No it doesn't. The court is a gang of political hacks hand picked to render the desired decisions.

In case you missed it, the court is a part of the Constitution

Yep, it's one of the flaws in the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

No, it doesn't mean what YOU interpret it to mean. Madison (who wrote it) totally disagrees with your interpretation. He explained how it is ludicrous to think it means what you claim.

Congress does not have the power to "do what needs doing" unless it falls under one of the several enumerated powers of Congress. If it's not in Article 1 Section 8, it is up to the states and people respectively.

Now, has the LIBERAL court ruled according to YOUR definition? Sure they have and they were WRONG! Just as they were WRONG to determine slaves were property and segregation was appropriate.

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong




.

No it doesn't. The court is a gang of political hacks hand picked to render the desired decisions.

In case you missed it, the court is a part of the Constitution

Yep, it's one of the flaws in the Constitution.

I would rather have a court system to interpret the constitution than an anarchist

 

[bripat9643]

No, it doesn't mean what YOU interpret it to mean. Madison (who wrote it) totally disagrees with your interpretation. He explained how it is ludicrous to think it means what you claim.

Congress does not have the power to "do what needs doing" unless it falls under one of the several enumerated powers of Congress. If it's not in Article 1 Section 8, it is up to the states and people respectively.

Now, has the LIBERAL court ruled according to YOUR definition? Sure they have and they were WRONG! Just as they were WRONG to determine slaves were property and segregation was appropriate.

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong




.

No it doesn't. The court is a gang of political hacks hand picked to render the desired decisions.

In case you missed it, the court is a part of the Constitution

Yep, it's one of the flaws in the Constitution.

I would rather have a court system to interpret the constitution than an anarchist

I'd rather not have the federal government telling me what the law says. Somehow that always turns out to favor the federal government. Have you noticed that?

 

[Davey T]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

You are as usual, confused.

The government does NOT create jobs and both Bush and Trump would tell you that. If you had a functioning brain cell to your name, you'd know what they meant but you are an idiot so it has to be explained to you.

What they mean is to create an environment where private businesses can create jobs. Like reducing taxes, giving tax incentives, cutting regulations, and basically getting the goverent out if the way.

Another ignorant left wing nut thread killed. My job is done here.

Who created the millions of jobs in the defense department? Including the men and women in uniform?

Who created public school teaching and non-teaching jobs?

Who created the jobs in law enforcement?

Who created the jobs for every business that has business with the government?

Without the government, the war machine contractors wouldn't exist.

Let's start at the beginning. The government doesn't have any money of its own. Therefore, it has to tax somebody to get the money for everything it does. When it taxes, it destroys. When it hires one person, any person, some one some where just got fired to compensate. It is invisible to most unthinking people but true. Some of these jobs we want and sacrifice for them but IT IS A SACRIFICE. That is why government can do nothing, ON NET, but destroy. So, the many many things the government does, on the other side of the ledger are tons and tons of lost jobs. Period.

 

[rightwinger]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

You are as usual, confused.

The government does NOT create jobs and both Bush and Trump would tell you that. If you had a functioning brain cell to your name, you'd know what they meant but you are an idiot so it has to be explained to you.

What they mean is to create an environment where private businesses can create jobs. Like reducing taxes, giving tax incentives, cutting regulations, and basically getting the goverent out if the way.

Another ignorant left wing nut thread killed. My job is done here.

Who created the millions of jobs in the defense department? Including the men and women in uniform?

Who created public school teaching and non-teaching jobs?

Who created the jobs in law enforcement?

Who created the jobs for every business that has business with the government?

Without the government, the war machine contractors wouldn't exist.

Let's start at the beginning. The government doesn't have any money of its own. Therefore, it has to tax somebody to get the money for everything it does. When it taxes, it destroys. When it hires one person, any person, some one some where just got fired to compensate. It is invisible to most unthinking people but true. Some of these jobs we want and sacrifice for them but IT IS A SACRIFICE. That is why government can do nothing, ON NET, but destroy. So, the many many things the government does, on the other side of the ledger are tons and tons of lost jobs. Period.

Complete and total nonsense

I can't believe this piece of propaganda bullshit keeps getting repeated

 

[Boss]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

Actually how it's written it says our government is to provide for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. As it's well known the Founders spent a lot of time and undoubtably went through many revisions before finally coming into agreement on that specific grammar, that these two roles was never meant to be used in the same context.

 

[rightwinger]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

 

[Boss]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

Again... The SCOTUS ruling was that slaves are property and blacks can be segregated. IF, as you argue, the Court decides what the Constitution means... we need to enslave black again because this was their ruling. We had no right to override that and it remains the court's decision on the matter.

Also, I notice you have not addressed the previous argument that Federal government can "do what needs doing" under the general welfare clause. I assume you read what Madison had to say on the subject, so was Madison wrong? Do you have some kind of explanation for how the Constitution grants government unlimited power under "general welfare" but then turns around and specifies enumerated powers?

 

[Redfish]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

I just don't understand why you want a bunch of beauocrats running every aspect of your life. Are you so incompetent that you cannot care for yourself. Why are you willing to turn your individual freedom over to a bunch of assholes in DC? and before you answer, those assholes may all be conservative republicans in a couple of years.

 

[The Rabbi]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

I just don't understand why you want a bunch of beauocrats running every aspect of your life. Are you so incompetent that you cannot care for yourself. Why are you willing to turn your individual freedom over to a bunch of assholes in DC? and before you answer, those assholes may all be conservative republicans in a couple of years.

Liberals worship fascism and yearn for the day Big Daddy will tell them what to do and take care of them.

 

[Redfish]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

I just don't understand why you want a bunch of beauocrats running every aspect of your life. Are you so incompetent that you cannot care for yourself. Why are you willing to turn your individual freedom over to a bunch of assholes in DC? and before you answer, those assholes may all be conservative republicans in a couple of years.

Liberals worship fascism and yearn for the day Big Daddy will tell them what to do and take care of them.

every day I am more convinced that liberalism is a mental disease. No sane person could think they way they do.

 

[rightwinger]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

Again... The SCOTUS ruling was that slaves are property and blacks can be segregated. IF, as you argue, the Court decides what the Constitution means... we need to enslave black again because this was their ruling. We had no right to override that and it remains the court's decision on the matter.

Also, I notice you have not addressed the previous argument that Federal government can "do what needs doing" under the general welfare clause. I assume you read what Madison had to say on the subject, so was Madison wrong? Do you have some kind of explanation for how the Constitution grants government unlimited power under "general welfare" but then turns around and specifies enumerated powers?

Sorry libertarian......but The Federalist Papers are not law
So much so that they were anonymously published

Madison had to edit and re-edit the constitution to satisfy all signatories. What is in there is the law.....not what Madison may have wanted

The courts decide....not the Federalist Papers

 

[The Rabbi]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

I just don't understand why you want a bunch of beauocrats running every aspect of your life. Are you so incompetent that you cannot care for yourself. Why are you willing to turn your individual freedom over to a bunch of assholes in DC? and before you answer, those assholes may all be conservative republicans in a couple of years.

Liberals worship fascism and yearn for the day Big Daddy will tell them what to do and take care of them.

every day I am more convinced that liberalism is a mental disease. No sane person could think they way they do.

I saw someone posting that the existence of the building that housed the old slave market in Charleston was responsible for the killings in SC. WTF? The whole outpouring of crap over the isolated act of one nutjob is emblemmatic of the terminal mental disease of liberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

Again... The SCOTUS ruling was that slaves are property and blacks can be segregated. IF, as you argue, the Court decides what the Constitution means... we need to enslave black again because this was their ruling. We had no right to override that and it remains the court's decision on the matter.

Also, I notice you have not addressed the previous argument that Federal government can "do what needs doing" under the general welfare clause. I assume you read what Madison had to say on the subject, so was Madison wrong? Do you have some kind of explanation for how the Constitution grants government unlimited power under "general welfare" but then turns around and specifies enumerated powers?

Sorry libertarian......but The Federalist Papers are not law
So much so that they were anonymously published

Madison had to edit and re-edit the constitution to satisfy all signatories. What is in there is the law.....not what Madison may have wanted

The courts decide....not the Federalist Papers

The General Welfare clause is not permission for the gov't to do anything and everything. If that were the case the Constitution would not have spelled out precisely what Congress' powers are.

 

[rightwinger]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

I just don't understand why you want a bunch of beauocrats running every aspect of your life. Are you so incompetent that you cannot care for yourself. Why are you willing to turn your individual freedom over to a bunch of assholes in DC? and before you answer, those assholes may all be conservative republicans in a couple of years.

Liberals worship fascism and yearn for the day Big Daddy will tell them what to do and take care of them.

every day I am more convinced that liberalism is a mental disease. No sane person could think they way they do.

Liberals founded this country and are responsible for every major advance.