Is it ethical for the Democratic party to keep blacks on the plantation needing government handouts

[ding]

How so?

You pray to it so that it keeps you safe, and listen to it as though it were in charge of you.

Nope. Try again.

Ya you do.

Nope. That’s not even close to how I pray.

So why do you pray?

To alter the fabric of my identity.

 

[Taz]

You pray to it so that it keeps you safe, and listen to it as though it were in charge of you.

Nope. Try again.

Ya you do.

Nope. That’s not even close to how I pray.

So why do you pray?

To alter the fabric of my identity.

Sorta like self-delusion? Or more like self-hypnosis, like hob seems to favour?

 

[danielpalos]

the general welfare clause is general the common defense clause is not.

Still not making sense.

we have a general welfare clause, not a limited, or common welfare clause.

You said that already.

It still doesn't mean jack shit.

it must mean something if it is written in our Constitution.

discretionary spending has to go first; there is no imperative to promote the general warfare over the general welfare.

Not what you have stretched it to mean.

See Locke.

I know how to read. We don't have a general warfare clause; we do have a general welfare clause.

should we go over military doctrine for comparison and contrast?

 

[ding]

Nope. Try again.

Ya you do.

Nope. That’s not even close to how I pray.

So why do you pray?

To alter the fabric of my identity.

Sorta like self-delusion? Or more like self-hypnosis, like hob seems to favour?

Nope. People can change their ways. No delusion there. Happens all the time.

 

[ding]

Still not making sense.

we have a general welfare clause, not a limited, or common welfare clause.

You said that already.

It still doesn't mean jack shit.

it must mean something if it is written in our Constitution.

discretionary spending has to go first; there is no imperative to promote the general warfare over the general welfare.

Not what you have stretched it to mean.

See Locke.

I know how to read. We don't have a general warfare clause; we do have a general welfare clause.

should we go over military doctrine for comparison and contrast?

No, we should go over what general welfare actually means.

You go first.

 

[danielpalos]

we have a general welfare clause, not a limited, or common welfare clause.

You said that already.

It still doesn't mean jack shit.

it must mean something if it is written in our Constitution.

discretionary spending has to go first; there is no imperative to promote the general warfare over the general welfare.

Not what you have stretched it to mean.

See Locke.

I know how to read. We don't have a general warfare clause; we do have a general welfare clause.

should we go over military doctrine for comparison and contrast?

No, we should go over what general welfare actually means.

You go first.

the Power to provide for the general welfare actually means what it says; there is no power to provide for the general warfare. That much should be clear.

 

[ding]

You said that already.

It still doesn't mean jack shit.

it must mean something if it is written in our Constitution.

discretionary spending has to go first; there is no imperative to promote the general warfare over the general welfare.

Not what you have stretched it to mean.

See Locke.

I know how to read. We don't have a general warfare clause; we do have a general welfare clause.

should we go over military doctrine for comparison and contrast?

No, we should go over what general welfare actually means.

You go first.

the Power to provide for the general welfare actually means what it says; there is no power to provide for the general warfare. That much should be clear.

What does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

Tell me what our government should do to provide for our general welfare. Feed us? Clothe us? Shelter us? Provide medical care for us? Set prices? Set wages? Set profits?

What exactly?

 

[danielpalos]

it must mean something if it is written in our Constitution.

discretionary spending has to go first; there is no imperative to promote the general warfare over the general welfare.

Not what you have stretched it to mean.

See Locke.

I know how to read. We don't have a general warfare clause; we do have a general welfare clause.

should we go over military doctrine for comparison and contrast?

No, we should go over what general welfare actually means.

You go first.

the Power to provide for the general welfare actually means what it says; there is no power to provide for the general warfare. That much should be clear.

What does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

Tell me what our government should do to provide for our general welfare. Feed us? Clothe us? Shelter us? Provide medical care for us? Set prices? Set wages? Set profits?

What exactly?

how about what we should not be getting from a general Welfare clause; no alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Taz]

Ya you do.

Nope. That’s not even close to how I pray.

So why do you pray?

To alter the fabric of my identity.

Sorta like self-delusion? Or more like self-hypnosis, like hob seems to favour?

Nope. People can change their ways. No delusion there. Happens all the time.

By praying to an invisible superbeing that you don't even know if it's there? That's self-delusion.

 

[ding]

Not what you have stretched it to mean.

See Locke.

I know how to read. We don't have a general warfare clause; we do have a general welfare clause.

should we go over military doctrine for comparison and contrast?

No, we should go over what general welfare actually means.

You go first.

the Power to provide for the general welfare actually means what it says; there is no power to provide for the general warfare. That much should be clear.

What does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

Tell me what our government should do to provide for our general welfare. Feed us? Clothe us? Shelter us? Provide medical care for us? Set prices? Set wages? Set profits?

What exactly?

how about what we should not be getting from a general Welfare clause; no alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

I'm not discussing warfare. I am discussing welfare. Specifically what my government's role is in providing for the general welfare of its people.

 

[ding]

Nope. That’s not even close to how I pray.

So why do you pray?

To alter the fabric of my identity.

Sorta like self-delusion? Or more like self-hypnosis, like hob seems to favour?

Nope. People can change their ways. No delusion there. Happens all the time.

By praying to an invisible superbeing that you don't even know if it's there? That's self-delusion.

So you agree that people can change their ways?

 

[Taz]

So why do you pray?

To alter the fabric of my identity.

Sorta like self-delusion? Or more like self-hypnosis, like hob seems to favour?

Nope. People can change their ways. No delusion there. Happens all the time.

By praying to an invisible superbeing that you don't even know if it's there? That's self-delusion.

So you agree that people can change their ways?

Of course, it's part of evolution.

 

[ding]

To alter the fabric of my identity.

Sorta like self-delusion? Or more like self-hypnosis, like hob seems to favour?

Nope. People can change their ways. No delusion there. Happens all the time.

By praying to an invisible superbeing that you don't even know if it's there? That's self-delusion.

So you agree that people can change their ways?

Of course, it's part of evolution.

So if praying to God alters the fabric of one's identity, who are you to say that people shouldn't do it?

 

[danielpalos]

I know how to read. We don't have a general warfare clause; we do have a general welfare clause.

should we go over military doctrine for comparison and contrast?

No, we should go over what general welfare actually means.

You go first.

the Power to provide for the general welfare actually means what it says; there is no power to provide for the general warfare. That much should be clear.

What does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

Tell me what our government should do to provide for our general welfare. Feed us? Clothe us? Shelter us? Provide medical care for us? Set prices? Set wages? Set profits?

What exactly?

how about what we should not be getting from a general Welfare clause; no alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

I'm not discussing warfare. I am discussing welfare. Specifically what my government's role is in providing for the general welfare of its people.

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to solve simple poverty. It can Only happen via Institutional means not Individual means.

 

[ding]

No, we should go over what general welfare actually means.

You go first.

the Power to provide for the general welfare actually means what it says; there is no power to provide for the general warfare. That much should be clear.

What does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

Tell me what our government should do to provide for our general welfare. Feed us? Clothe us? Shelter us? Provide medical care for us? Set prices? Set wages? Set profits?

What exactly?

how about what we should not be getting from a general Welfare clause; no alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

I'm not discussing warfare. I am discussing welfare. Specifically what my government's role is in providing for the general welfare of its people.

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to solve simple poverty. It can Only happen via Institutional means not Individual means.

Are you trying to say that because some people live what you would call in poverty that the government is not providing for the general welfare of the people?

Need I remind you that the standard for poverty is worldwide and that even our most impoverished would be considered wealthy in most other countries?

But putting that aside, are you trying to suggest that the government owes them something because they are in poverty?

 

[danielpalos]

the Power to provide for the general welfare actually means what it says; there is no power to provide for the general warfare. That much should be clear.

What does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

Tell me what our government should do to provide for our general welfare. Feed us? Clothe us? Shelter us? Provide medical care for us? Set prices? Set wages? Set profits?

What exactly?

how about what we should not be getting from a general Welfare clause; no alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

I'm not discussing warfare. I am discussing welfare. Specifically what my government's role is in providing for the general welfare of its people.

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to solve simple poverty. It can Only happen via Institutional means not Individual means.

Are you trying to say that because some people live what you would call in poverty that the government is not providing for the general welfare of the people?

Need I remind you that the standard for poverty is worldwide and that even our most impoverished would be considered wealthy in most other countries?

But putting that aside, are you trying to suggest that the government owes them something because they are in poverty?

No. I am saying capitalism has a natural rate of inefficiency that the socialism of our welfare clause, general; can solve for. There is no reason for the right wing to complain about the cost of social services with more market friendly public policies.

 

[ding]

What does it mean to provide for the general welfare?

Tell me what our government should do to provide for our general welfare. Feed us? Clothe us? Shelter us? Provide medical care for us? Set prices? Set wages? Set profits?

What exactly?

how about what we should not be getting from a general Welfare clause; no alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

I'm not discussing warfare. I am discussing welfare. Specifically what my government's role is in providing for the general welfare of its people.

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to solve simple poverty. It can Only happen via Institutional means not Individual means.

Are you trying to say that because some people live what you would call in poverty that the government is not providing for the general welfare of the people?

Need I remind you that the standard for poverty is worldwide and that even our most impoverished would be considered wealthy in most other countries?

But putting that aside, are you trying to suggest that the government owes them something because they are in poverty?

No. I am saying capitalism has a natural rate of inefficiency that the socialism of our welfare clause, general; can solve for. There is no reason for the right wing to complain about the cost of social services with more market friendly public policies.

And I am trying to establish what you think that standard is. What standard are you measuring it against?

Because capitalism has proven to lift people out of poverty. No other form has done so. Even the socialist states that were lifted out of poverty were lifted out through capitalism.

So your argument does not hold any water.

1. No other form of commerce has performed better.
2. Your standard for poverty is skewed to that of a capitalist nation and not the rest of the world.

 

[danielpalos]

Full employment of capital resources is the Objective. Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market friendly manner to achieve that End. What benefit does the inefficiency of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment provide for our republic or Labor, specifically?

Capital must circulate under capitalism to ensure liquidity in our market based system of Commerce.

Our economy benefits through greater participation in our markets, and provides an automatic stabilization effect, along with engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy

 

[ding]

And I am trying to establish what you think that standard is. What standard are you measuring it against?

Because capitalism has proven to lift people out of poverty. No other form has done so. Even the socialist states that were lifted out of poverty were lifted out through capitalism.

So your argument does not hold any water.

1. No other form of commerce has performed better.
2. Your standard for poverty is skewed to that of a capitalist nation and not the rest of the world.

Full employment of capital resources is the Objective. Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market friendly manner to achieve that End. What benefit does the inefficiency of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment provide for our republic or Labor, specifically?

Capital must circulate under capitalism to ensure liquidity in our market based system of Commerce.

Our economy benefits through greater participation in our markets, and provides an automatic stabilization effect, along with engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy

Where does it say that the "Full employment of capital resources is the Objective?"

Besides capitalism employs the greatest employment of capital resources than any other form of commerce and does so without government involvement. So our government is meeting its contract to provide for the general welfare of the public.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a market friendly manner and will only result in more inefficiency.

What benefit does the inefficiency of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment provide for our republic or Labor, specifically? First of all capitalism is the most efficient form of commerce so I don't know what inefficiency you are referring to. There is no other form of commerce that is more efficient. Secondly, it is not our government's job or role to do so. Like I said before, no other form of commerce has performed better and your standard for poverty is skewed to that of a capitalist nation and not the rest of the world.

Yes, capital must circulate under capitalism to ensure liquidity in our market based system of Commerce, and does so just fine as long as the government does not interfere.

 

[danielpalos]

And I am trying to establish what you think that standard is. What standard are you measuring it against?

Because capitalism has proven to lift people out of poverty. No other form has done so. Even the socialist states that were lifted out of poverty were lifted out through capitalism.

So your argument does not hold any water.

1. No other form of commerce has performed better.
2. Your standard for poverty is skewed to that of a capitalist nation and not the rest of the world.

Full employment of capital resources is the Objective. Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market friendly manner to achieve that End. What benefit does the inefficiency of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment provide for our republic or Labor, specifically?

Capital must circulate under capitalism to ensure liquidity in our market based system of Commerce.

Our economy benefits through greater participation in our markets, and provides an automatic stabilization effect, along with engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy

Where does it say that the "Full employment of capital resources is the Objective?"

Besides capitalism employs the greatest employment of capital resources than any other form of commerce and does so without government involvement. So our government is meeting its contract to provide for the general welfare of the public.

Compensating Labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is not a market friendly manner and will only result in more inefficiency.

What benefit does the inefficiency of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment provide for our republic or Labor, specifically? First of all capitalism is the most efficient form of commerce so I don't know what inefficiency you are referring to. There is no other form of commerce that is more efficient. Secondly, it is not our government's job or role to do so. Like I said before, no other form of commerce has performed better and your standard for poverty is skewed to that of a capitalist nation and not the rest of the world.

Yes, capital must circulate under capitalism to ensure liquidity in our market based system of Commerce, and does so just fine as long as the government does not interfere.

Full employment of resources benefits the most People in our Republic.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more cost effective than our current and more expensive regime. We should be improving the efficiency of our Government, to lower the cost.

It does provide for the general welfare not the general warfare.