Democrats introduce bill requiring men who jack off to report to police.

[Ambivalent1]

Here is a clear cut case of truth being stranger than fiction. Really, how can you tell people about this Democrat legislation, have them believe you and not laugh in your face unless you have the proof to back it up? This completely goes far beyond what the fuck! But then, this is the Democrat party for you. It's really shocking and alarming that the Democrats want to stretch (yeah, pun intended) their marxist police state this far.

Dems Introduce Bill Forcing Men to Report to Police When They Masturbate

Only the stupidest wouldn’t understand that this is a sardonic response to men’s attempt to control women


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only the stupidest wouldn’t understand that this is a sardonic response to men’s attempt to control women

ROFLMFAO

Women try to control men

Only weak men who are fearful of strong women are controlled by those women- And it is not the fault of the women

Coming from a Beta Boi that's hilarious. But back to the topic, do you shut the bathroom door when masturbate?

Do you always try this hard to out-stupid yourself?

Ahhh, ok, so you leave it open in case someone walks by.
Got it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Moron. The congresswoman who “sponsored” the “bill” was making a point. She had no intention of the bill actually being introduced.

Read better.

What sort of dumb bitch equates murdering babies with masturbation? Oh yeah. A dried up liberal ****. Bunch of lunatics.

What sort of dumb fuck equates birth control with murdering a baby? A. Plenty in the pro-life cult

When dumb lazy whores use murder as birth control, that is a problem. I have no issue with condoms or traditional birth control pills. The Democrat party is officially in favor of slicing babies spinal cords as they are born. Bunch of sick mother fuckers.

Better put your tin foil hat back on, Bubba

Dems made it abundantly clear. It is a signature of their platform. They oppose ANY regulation of abortion. That includes infanticide. Pathetic. Keep supporting infanticide. See how that turn out for you.

Really? Show us. Post the actual document with the source.

 

[P@triot]

The services that planned parenthood provides address public health issues and are therefor within the purview of government to support. Unconstitutional???> That is really stupid!

There is no such thing as “public health”. All health is individual and private (hence HIPAA laws). Good grief do you post the most absurd and desperate shit.

 

[P@triot]

The services that planned parenthood provides address public health issues and are therefor within the purview of government to support. Unconstitutional???> That is really stupid!

Bwahahaha! Please site for us the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government “purview” over “public health”.

Don’t worry....I’ll wait.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The services that planned parenthood provides address public health issues and are therefor within the purview of government to support. Unconstitutional???> That is really stupid!

Bwahahaha! Please site for us the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government “purview” over “public health”.

Don’t worry....I’ll wait.

Article 1 Section 8 " to provide for the general welfare...."

 

[P@triot]

Article 1 Section 8 " to provide for the general welfare...."

The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

Epic Fail. Would you like to try again?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Article 1 Section 8 " to provide for the general welfare...."

The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

Epic Fail. Would you like to try again?

I don't need to try again. That was all before the 14th Amendment and a robust body of constitutional law-That is court decision and precedents) that extended to authority of the federal government to the states and created many more unenumerated rights and legal precedents. .Constitutional law goes beyond the words of the founders and the original document or the amendments

 

[P@triot]

I don't need to try again. That was all before the 14th Amendment and a robust body of constitutional law-That is court decision and precedents) that extended to authority of the federal government to the states and created many more unenumerated rights and legal precedents. .Constitutional law goes beyond the words of the founders and the original document or the amendments

Boom! You just proved you are dead-wrong. If your lazy ass had ever taken the time to actually read the U.S. Constitution, you would know that the courts cannot create law from the bench (including expanding enumerated powers). That is a major violation of the separation of powers.

Would you like to try a third time? I love when you speak. You bury your own position worse with each post.

 

[P@triot]

I don't need to try again. That was all before the 14th Amendment and a robust body of constitutional law-That is court decision and precedents) that extended to authority of the federal government to the states and created many more unenumerated rights and legal precedents. .Constitutional law goes beyond the words of the founders and the original document or the amendments

Just to further illustrate how asinine your claims are:

Logically you would agree that President Trump can sign an Executive Order tomorrow to execute every progressive in the U.S., right? The fact is, that truly would be in the “general welfare” of the United States to rid ourselves of the communist parasites who hate this country and are trying to destroy the constitution (like you). So Trump absolutely has that power, right? You just said he did.

Do you realize how stupid you sound now? If the “General Welfare” clause meant what you want it to mean - the federal government would have unlimited power. They would just have to claim their action was for the “general welfare” of the people and they could do anything they wanted. Eliminate free speech. Shut down the internet. Imprison black people. Anything.

You’re truly a moron.