Issues that conservatives suddenly don't care about ..

[Iceweasel]

If your interpretation was what they meant then the government has the authority to do whatever it wants. They can take 100% of your earnings and make you stand in their bread lines for rations.

What interpretation? I simply quoted the Constitution.

You forgot what you said, read your own posts instead of looking like a moron.

"You seem to have forgotten the part about 'promoting the general welfare' and 'securing the blessings of liberty':"

You were arguing against the purpose of the federal government to provide primary functions, national security, borders, etc. We do that with a strong military, immigration laws, police, emergency services, etc. It does not mean food stamps and disability checks for being too fat and lazy to work.

Absolutely nothing I have said has been against the government providing for the common defense. You seem to read a lot more into what I've said then is actually there.

But, as I posted an except from the preamble to the constitution, it was you, not I, that interpreted 'promoting the general welfare' to mean 'the government has the authority to do whatever it wants. They can take 100% of your earnings and make you stand in their bread lines for rations.' Your words, not mine.

So far I've said nothing that was any sort of interpretation. I only quoted the constitution. You seem to be going off the deep end - making all sorts of assumptions - and putting your foot in mouth with each one.

I didn't say you said government shouldn't provide for the common defense. Jesus, you can't read period! Your comment was in response to smaller government so you don't even have a deep end.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

You said to me 'You were arguing against the purpose of the federal government to provide primary functions, national security, borders, etc.'

No I wasn't. They would be covered under the 'common defense' clause. I only quoted the Constitution to show that government had an equal responsibility to 'Promote the General Welfare'.

Either you've mixed me up with another poster or you have a severe problem with reading comprehension.

I understood all too well, you can't defend your position. General welfare doesn't mean welfare as in a ward of the state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They still care about those things. But they had to support the alternative to the Clinton Crime Family. They didn't have much of a choice. I've already warned my Republican friends that Trump is not a staunch Conservative or Constitutionalist. I've warned em, they shouldn't expect him to be. If they do, they'll be bitterly disappointed. Trump was simply the only choice we had.

For me personally, i'll be satisfied if he just gets aggressive on border security and attempts to rebuild Hussein's dismantled Immigration System. And he appoints Supreme Court Justices who aren't Anti-American Globalists. That's all i really need from Trump. I've given up hope on things like balancing the budget, reducing the devastating Debt, stopping the rapid expansion of the Police State, ending endless war, and so on. I realize that stuff is gonna go on and on regardless of which Party controls the White House. I'll just take what i can get at this point.

Ignoring the rest of your post, it seems idiotic that you would use the phrase 'The Clinton Crime Family' while supporting Donald Trump.

You do know that Donald Trump's father made his fortune in real estate and construction in the New York area during the 1960s - 1980s, right? You do know that the New York area was rife with organized crime during that period, right? I doubt that there's a chance in hell Donald Trumps father could have been successful in that area and at that time without having some connection to organized crime.

Maybe you should think of him more as 'The Don...ald'.

So what you're saying is that all successful people in New York were connected to the mob?

 

[Richard-H]

What interpretation? I simply quoted the Constitution.

You forgot what you said, read your own posts instead of looking like a moron.

"You seem to have forgotten the part about 'promoting the general welfare' and 'securing the blessings of liberty':"

You were arguing against the purpose of the federal government to provide primary functions, national security, borders, etc. We do that with a strong military, immigration laws, police, emergency services, etc. It does not mean food stamps and disability checks for being too fat and lazy to work.

Absolutely nothing I have said has been against the government providing for the common defense. You seem to read a lot more into what I've said then is actually there.

But, as I posted an except from the preamble to the constitution, it was you, not I, that interpreted 'promoting the general welfare' to mean 'the government has the authority to do whatever it wants. They can take 100% of your earnings and make you stand in their bread lines for rations.' Your words, not mine.

So far I've said nothing that was any sort of interpretation. I only quoted the constitution. You seem to be going off the deep end - making all sorts of assumptions - and putting your foot in mouth with each one.

I didn't say you said government shouldn't provide for the common defense. Jesus, you can't read period! Your comment was in response to smaller government so you don't even have a deep end.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

You said to me 'You were arguing against the purpose of the federal government to provide primary functions, national security, borders, etc.'

No I wasn't. They would be covered under the 'common defense' clause. I only quoted the Constitution to show that government had an equal responsibility to 'Promote the General Welfare'.

Either you've mixed me up with another poster or you have a severe problem with reading comprehension.

I understood all too well, you can't defend your position. General welfare doesn't mean welfare as in a ward of the state.

Your asking me to take a stand to defend a position that I never took....a stupid attempt to put words into my mouth and then declare yourself the winner when I refuse to defend them.

Anyway, all of the 'welfare state' programs which exist and that you object to have been challenged in court and have been found to be constitutional. Fortunately we have judges that understand the Constitution. You apparently do not.

 

[Richard-H]

They still care about those things. But they had to support the alternative to the Clinton Crime Family. They didn't have much of a choice. I've already warned my Republican friends that Trump is not a staunch Conservative or Constitutionalist. I've warned em, they shouldn't expect him to be. If they do, they'll be bitterly disappointed. Trump was simply the only choice we had.

For me personally, i'll be satisfied if he just gets aggressive on border security and attempts to rebuild Hussein's dismantled Immigration System. And he appoints Supreme Court Justices who aren't Anti-American Globalists. That's all i really need from Trump. I've given up hope on things like balancing the budget, reducing the devastating Debt, stopping the rapid expansion of the Police State, ending endless war, and so on. I realize that stuff is gonna go on and on regardless of which Party controls the White House. I'll just take what i can get at this point.

Ignoring the rest of your post, it seems idiotic that you would use the phrase 'The Clinton Crime Family' while supporting Donald Trump.

You do know that Donald Trump's father made his fortune in real estate and construction in the New York area during the 1960s - 1980s, right? You do know that the New York area was rife with organized crime during that period, right? I doubt that there's a chance in hell Donald Trumps father could have been successful in that area and at that time without having some connection to organized crime.

Maybe you should think of him more as 'The Don...ald'.

So what you're saying is that all successful people in New York were connected to the mob?

Nope. I saying EVERYONE that lived in the New York area at that time had some connection to the mob. It was a fact of life.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They still care about those things. But they had to support the alternative to the Clinton Crime Family. They didn't have much of a choice. I've already warned my Republican friends that Trump is not a staunch Conservative or Constitutionalist. I've warned em, they shouldn't expect him to be. If they do, they'll be bitterly disappointed. Trump was simply the only choice we had.

For me personally, i'll be satisfied if he just gets aggressive on border security and attempts to rebuild Hussein's dismantled Immigration System. And he appoints Supreme Court Justices who aren't Anti-American Globalists. That's all i really need from Trump. I've given up hope on things like balancing the budget, reducing the devastating Debt, stopping the rapid expansion of the Police State, ending endless war, and so on. I realize that stuff is gonna go on and on regardless of which Party controls the White House. I'll just take what i can get at this point.

Ignoring the rest of your post, it seems idiotic that you would use the phrase 'The Clinton Crime Family' while supporting Donald Trump.

You do know that Donald Trump's father made his fortune in real estate and construction in the New York area during the 1960s - 1980s, right? You do know that the New York area was rife with organized crime during that period, right? I doubt that there's a chance in hell Donald Trumps father could have been successful in that area and at that time without having some connection to organized crime.

Maybe you should think of him more as 'The Don...ald'.

So what you're saying is that all successful people in New York were connected to the mob?

Nope. I saying EVERYONE that lived in the New York area at that time had some connection to the mob. It was a fact of life.

Everyone? How big do you think the mob was? New York City has 9 million residents.

 

[Clementine]

now that Trump is elected , cons have quickly forgotten issues that really bothered them under Obama.

Debt/deficit : 20 trillion!! Bah, who cares . Let's build giant walls and double the military. Costs be damn !

Prez security budget: Obama couldn't go to dinner without a story of how it cost taxpayers trillions . Now trump will be commuting from DC to manhattan on a daily basis . That's cool!

States rights : sanctuary city? You
Must bow to the Feds directives , at your own cost!

What else ? I had more but forgot .

He won't be accepting the salary he is supposed to get. See not in office yet and is saving us money already.

For a four year term, and in Trump's case let's hope it is not that long, a President makes 1.6 million. Almost two days the amount of money outlaid by New York City to protect his orange ass each day he sits there.

Security for a president isn't cheap. Wonder how much was spent on a day of golf for Obama?

Which is what the cons reminded us 24/7 . Hence the point of this thread .

Never cared about the cost of security, but you snowflakes are all a sudden caring about money. Of course you didn't care when it was Obama being taken care of.

None of the libs cared when tax payers footed the bill for Obama to travel around the country for the sole purpose of campaigning for Hillary. Talk about a waste of money. His family's vacations and his golf days also ran up huge bills. Nary a complaint from the left.

Better border security would save tens of billions each year. Cost of increased border security would be a fraction of that.

Dems claim to be all about the children but disapprove of Melania staying put so her son can stay in his school for the time being. Of course, the left is against school vouchers, too. Pro-choice only applies to abortion and libs prefer to tell you what to do about all other things.

Of course, the libs will bitch when the Trump administration tries to cut unnecessary spending.

 

[Richard-H]

They still care about those things. But they had to support the alternative to the Clinton Crime Family. They didn't have much of a choice. I've already warned my Republican friends that Trump is not a staunch Conservative or Constitutionalist. I've warned em, they shouldn't expect him to be. If they do, they'll be bitterly disappointed. Trump was simply the only choice we had.

For me personally, i'll be satisfied if he just gets aggressive on border security and attempts to rebuild Hussein's dismantled Immigration System. And he appoints Supreme Court Justices who aren't Anti-American Globalists. That's all i really need from Trump. I've given up hope on things like balancing the budget, reducing the devastating Debt, stopping the rapid expansion of the Police State, ending endless war, and so on. I realize that stuff is gonna go on and on regardless of which Party controls the White House. I'll just take what i can get at this point.

Ignoring the rest of your post, it seems idiotic that you would use the phrase 'The Clinton Crime Family' while supporting Donald Trump.

You do know that Donald Trump's father made his fortune in real estate and construction in the New York area during the 1960s - 1980s, right? You do know that the New York area was rife with organized crime during that period, right? I doubt that there's a chance in hell Donald Trumps father could have been successful in that area and at that time without having some connection to organized crime.

Maybe you should think of him more as 'The Don...ald'.

So what you're saying is that all successful people in New York were connected to the mob?

Nope. I saying EVERYONE that lived in the New York area at that time had some connection to the mob. It was a fact of life.

Everyone? How big do you think the mob was? New York City has 9 million residents.

The New York area is sub-divided into ethnic areas, including the suburbs. There are Italian areas, Irish areas. Anglo areas, Jewish areas. Each Ethnic group has it's own organized crime groups, there is no single unified 'Mob'.

In fact most organized crime would be best understood as complex business relationships between free libertarian businessmen. Union leaders were no different.

I'd think that there were very few people who didn't at least know someone in the 'mob' or the 'Mafia' or whatever you want to call these groups.

 

[Londoner]

Just wait until the spending cuts are announced, and you'll be screaming chicken little....

The huge increase in military spending will wipe out the savings from cosmetic reductions to welfare/entitlements.

Republican Presidents tend to increase corporate subsidies.

Also, look for a return of the Bush years where not one piece of Republican Pork was vetoed.

Factor in the wall and you will have the biggest run-up in debt that we have ever seen. Oh yeah, factor in the massive tax cuts, and the deficits will be historic. Republican voters tend not to understand any of this, partly because their news sources never cover the spending/debt of Republican presidents. This is why you and your fellow message board posters don't even know how many times Bush 43 raised the debt ceiling when the GOP controlled House/Senate.

 

[rightwinger]

He won't be accepting the salary he is supposed to get. See not in office yet and is saving us money already.

For a four year term, and in Trump's case let's hope it is not that long, a President makes 1.6 million. Almost two days the amount of money outlaid by New York City to protect his orange ass each day he sits there.

Security for a president isn't cheap. Wonder how much was spent on a day of golf for Obama?

Which is what the cons reminded us 24/7 . Hence the point of this thread .

Never cared about the cost of security, but you snowflakes are all a sudden caring about money. Of course you didn't care when it was Obama being taken care of.

None of the libs cared when tax payers footed the bill for Obama to travel around the country for the sole purpose of campaigning for Hillary. Talk about a waste of money. His family's vacations and his golf days also ran up huge bills. Nary a complaint from the left.

Better border security would save tens of billions each year. Cost of increased border security would be a fraction of that.

Dems claim to be all about the children but disapprove of Melania staying put so her son can stay in his school for the time being. Of course, the left is against school vouchers, too. Pro-choice only applies to abortion and libs prefer to tell you what to do about all other things.

Of course, the libs will bitch when the Trump administration tries to cut unnecessary spending.

Building a wall will cost hundreds of billions of dollars
Money better spent on roads, bridges, water systems, modern communications, healthcare.....

 

[Richard-H]

If the Rio Grande doesn't stop the immigrants, why would anyone think a wall will?

 

[Synthaholic]

You can't read an article and you call me an idiot? Fuck off, twerp.

I can read, it's you that's having a hard time because the article didn't come with big color pictures for you to understand.

Trying to state that SS costs are related to what somebody has for dinner is pure idiotic.

It has nothing to do with the dinner menu, you imbecile.

Read the article, not the headline.

 

[Synthaholic]

now that Trump is elected , cons have quickly forgotten issues that really bothered them under Obama.

Debt/deficit : 20 trillion!! Bah, who cares . Let's build giant walls and double the military. Costs be damn !

Prez security budget: Obama couldn't go to dinner without a story of how it cost taxpayers trillions . Now trump will be commuting from DC to manhattan on a daily basis . That's cool!

States rights : sanctuary city? You
Must bow to the Feds directives , at your own cost!

What else ? I had more but forgot .

maybe if the presidents dinner didnt have to be in Martha's Vinyard, take a week, two presidential planes 500 men on security detail and golf course fee's, he wouldnt have heard so much grief about the expense of that dinner.

Tell us again about the private plane for Obamas dog and the $100 million a day trip to India

Im sorry, Im not familiar with these stories but they do sound interesting, could you bring me up to date on them and include a reputable link?
After reading about it and getting some knowledge on the facts, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Is your Google broken?

 

[Synthaholic]

now that Trump is elected , cons have quickly forgotten issues that really bothered them under Obama.

Debt/deficit : 20 trillion!! Bah, who cares . Let's build giant walls and double the military. Costs be damn !

Prez security budget: Obama couldn't go to dinner without a story of how it cost taxpayers trillions . Now trump will be commuting from DC to manhattan on a daily basis . That's cool!

States rights : sanctuary city? You
Must bow to the Feds directives , at your own cost!

What else ? I had more but forgot .

maybe if the presidents dinner didnt have to be in Martha's Vinyard, take a week, two presidential planes 500 men on security detail and golf course fee's, he wouldnt have heard so much grief about the expense of that dinner.

Obama took the same vacation every year to the vineyard . Security had it down pat. He stayed in country side , and its a island wh few options to get in and out . It's the perfect spot for security. And it's like an hour flight from DC on marine one .

Trump is going to hang out in the middle of the busiest most congested places in the country !

do you have a link to Trumps travel plans?
Im sure you do, as a liberal you certainly would not be caught dead making things up.

Yeah . His wife n kid are staying in NYC . So he'll be commuting .

Remember, it was you righties who made a big deal over Obamas travel . You reap what you sow .

Which was total bullshit, since Bush took way more vacation time than any POTUS in history and they didn't mind that at all.

 

[Synthaholic]

The purpose of government has expanded to the point that it has become overly burdensome to the public good. You say you work in the government and you should know how it is slow and inefficient. You also should know that in every office or shop there are people who don't pull their own weight. Because they've created permanent positions, the lazy and worthless can come in every day and do absolutely nothing and not get fired because of it.

We're talking strictly Public Works here.

Policemen, teachers, and firefighters are a different issue. They aren't federal employees. I've never been one of these, so I can't speak to that issue and all you're trying to do is deflect from what we have been talking about.

Government employees are government employees regardless of what level they work at. Still jobs created by government
Government fills the roles that people can't. People can't build roads, so government collects money to build them collectively. Same with education, police, fire. The people can't build a military...we need the government to do that

Still trying to deflect.
The feds have nothing to do with local government jobs.
The primary responsibility of the federal government is to provide national defense and security. State and local government is responsible for infrastructure...or did you forget that. Nope, you're just trying to move the goalposts to justify your false positions.

You seem to have forgotten the part about 'promoting the general welfare' and 'securing the blessings of liberty':

" provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

If your interpretation was what they meant then the government has the authority to do whatever it wants. They can take 100% of your earnings and make you stand in their bread lines for rations.

What interpretation? I simply quoted the Constitution.

Wingnuts hate that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can't read an article and you call me an idiot? Fuck off, twerp.

I can read, it's you that's having a hard time because the article didn't come with big color pictures for you to understand.

Trying to state that SS costs are related to what somebody has for dinner is pure idiotic.

It has nothing to do with the dinner menu, you imbecile.

Read the article, not the headline.

Oh, so what you're saying is that the headline is misleading--even lying? That's pretty typical of the left.

So then what's your problem, that he went out for Thanksgiving?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

now that Trump is elected , cons have quickly forgotten issues that really bothered them under Obama.

Debt/deficit : 20 trillion!! Bah, who cares . Let's build giant walls and double the military. Costs be damn !

Prez security budget: Obama couldn't go to dinner without a story of how it cost taxpayers trillions . Now trump will be commuting from DC to manhattan on a daily basis . That's cool!

States rights : sanctuary city? You
Must bow to the Feds directives , at your own cost!

What else ? I had more but forgot .

maybe if the presidents dinner didnt have to be in Martha's Vinyard, take a week, two presidential planes 500 men on security detail and golf course fee's, he wouldnt have heard so much grief about the expense of that dinner.

Obama took the same vacation every year to the vineyard . Security had it down pat. He stayed in country side , and its a island wh few options to get in and out . It's the perfect spot for security. And it's like an hour flight from DC on marine one .

Trump is going to hang out in the middle of the busiest most congested places in the country !

do you have a link to Trumps travel plans?
Im sure you do, as a liberal you certainly would not be caught dead making things up.

Yeah . His wife n kid are staying in NYC . So he'll be commuting .

Remember, it was you righties who made a big deal over Obamas travel . You reap what you sow .

Which was total bullshit, since Bush took way more vacation time than any POTUS in history and they didn't mind that at all.

Most of the vacation time taken by Bush were to his ranch, and they were working vacations where world leaders would also attend. How much did he save the taxpayer in hotel and conference room feels by doing this?

 

[Dragonlady]

I understood all too well, you can't defend your position. General welfare doesn't mean welfare as in a ward of the state.

"Welfare", as in payments from the state to its indigent citizens, did not even exist as a concept until the 20th century. The authors of the Constitution could have hardly referenced a concept which did not exist in their day.

Welfare came into being because of the Great Depression. Because of thousand of people standing in bread lines, riding in boxcars, and living in shanty towns. People who had lost everything and couldn't find work.
In the richest nation in the world, in the 21st century, the lowest wage earners don't make enough money to put food on their table or a roof over their heads, while their bosses take home millions.

And in your infinite wisdom, you blame the workers.

 

[kaz]

now that Trump is elected , cons have quickly forgotten issues that really bothered them under Obama.

Debt/deficit : 20 trillion!! Bah, who cares . Let's build giant walls and double the military. Costs be damn !

Prez security budget: Obama couldn't go to dinner without a story of how it cost taxpayers trillions . Now trump will be commuting from DC to manhattan on a daily basis . That's cool!

States rights : sanctuary city? You
Must bow to the Feds directives , at your own cost!

What else ? I had more but forgot .

This is just liberal mental masterbation

 

[Timmy]

now that Trump is elected , cons have quickly forgotten issues that really bothered them under Obama.

Debt/deficit : 20 trillion!! Bah, who cares . Let's build giant walls and double the military. Costs be damn !

Prez security budget: Obama couldn't go to dinner without a story of how it cost taxpayers trillions . Now trump will be commuting from DC to manhattan on a daily basis . That's cool!

States rights : sanctuary city? You
Must bow to the Feds directives , at your own cost!

What else ? I had more but forgot .

This is just liberal mental masterbation

Can't counter can you .

 

[RealDave]

The government makes no decisions for you.

You mean they're not now? They are making decisions for me. They decided that I have to now buy my own healthcare plan. They decide how much I can afford. They decide on what doctor or hospital I'm allowed to have. They decide what insurance companies I have to choose from.

Yes, you have to contribute to the healthcare system that has to treat you in the ER by law.

You know damn well you already had health insurance.

They decided when subsidies are to be offered. OMG OMG OMG. How do you think they should determine that?

YOU decide what hospitals & doctors when YOU choose your policy. There is NOTHING in the ACA that sets network coverages.

They should not be involved in forcing people to have healthcare in the first place.

Yes, government made that decision for you. Government made the decision on how much you can afford to buy healthcare via subsidies. They use adjusted income to make that determination. They don't ask how much your mortgage/ rent payments are, they don't know how much your automobile payments are, they don't ask how much you need to spend for gasoline every month to get to work and back, they don't ask how much you may be paying in child support, they don't ask what you are currently paying on medical expenses, they don't ask anything, and do you know why? Because government knows everything.

Now if you can't afford insurance because of your expenses, government comes along and takes your hard earned money away by keeping your income tax refund which a lot of people depend on. If you don't want that, you have to sell your home to afford insurance, sell your car and get a beater, stop saving for your retirement or your children's college, YOU DO THINGS THE WAY BIG BROTHER INSTRUCTS YOU TO DO! Our founders would be so ashamed of our people right now to allow this kind of federal government control over our lives.

How do you end preexisting conditions without the mandate?

I have news, the idea you bought a home you can't afford, bought more of a car, or decided to taje a job 200 miles from your home.

Again, there has to be a metric to determine who gets a subsidy.

What's next? having a fit on income tax brackets? "OMG OMG the government decides how much tax I can afford"?????????

This wacko government control arguments you whiners make is just ridiculous.

"OMG OMG OMG how dare government tell me how fast I can drive!!!" OMG OMG