Moderate Cannabis Use Has Adverse Effects on Cognitive Functioning,

[pknopp]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

blah blah blah,,,,

You don't want the states to enforce immigration even though the courts and the constitution says it's a federal matter?

do try and stay on topic,,,youre all over the place,,,

Cowardly reply. You say you want the states to address welfare but you don't want to address the costs the states are undergoing because of the failures of the federal government.

 

[pknopp]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

? police misbehavior is a federal issue?

I explained my position. You can address what I said or try and spin it. I didn't say it was a federal issue. I said it is a state issue that many do not want to address. If addressed the state would have more for the welfare of the citizens.

 

[irosie91]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

blah blah blah,,,,

You don't want the states to enforce immigration even though the courts and the constitution says it's a federal matter?

do try and stay on topic,,,youre all over the place,,,

Cowardly reply. You say you want the states to address welfare but you don't want to address the costs the states are undergoing because of the failures of the federal government.

huh? can you be more specific?

 

[progressive hunter]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

blah blah blah,,,,

You don't want the states to enforce immigration even though the courts and the constitution says it's a federal matter?

do try and stay on topic,,,youre all over the place,,,

Cowardly reply. You say you want the states to address welfare but you don't want to address the costs the states are undergoing because of the failures of the federal government.

the feds have failed at welfare and you want to ignore it,,,

 

[pknopp]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

blah blah blah,,,,

You don't want the states to enforce immigration even though the courts and the constitution says it's a federal matter?

do try and stay on topic,,,youre all over the place,,,

Cowardly reply. You say you want the states to address welfare but you don't want to address the costs the states are undergoing because of the failures of the federal government.

the feds have failed at welfare and you want to ignore it,,,

I have addressed it. It has kept us from the same thing France went through in the late 18th century.

 

[irosie91]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

? police misbehavior is a federal issue?

I explained my position. You can address what I said or try and spin it. I didn't say it was a federal issue. I said it is a state issue that many do not want to address. If addressed the state would have more for the welfare of the citizens.

I don't understand what "If addressed the state
would have more for the welfare of the citizens"
As far as I understand your writing "IT" refers to
settlement payments for lawsuits against the police??? I may be entirely wrong about "IT"

 

[pknopp]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

? police misbehavior is a federal issue?

I explained my position. You can address what I said or try and spin it. I didn't say it was a federal issue. I said it is a state issue that many do not want to address. If addressed the state would have more for the welfare of the citizens.

I don't understand what "If addressed the state
would have more for the welfare of the citizens"
As far as I understand your writing "IT" refers to
settlement payments for lawsuits against the police??? I may be entirely wrong about "IT"

That was one part of my argument.

New York couldn't better spend these millions elsehwhere?

Spending billions on policing, then millions on police misconduct

 

[danielpalos]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

Only if you appeal to ignorance of economics like right wingers are wont to do. Why do you believe more people circulating more capital under our form of Capitalism can be a Bad thing?

 

[progressive hunter]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

? police misbehavior is a federal issue?

I explained my position. You can address what I said or try and spin it. I didn't say it was a federal issue. I said it is a state issue that many do not want to address. If addressed the state would have more for the welfare of the citizens.

I don't understand what "If addressed the state
would have more for the welfare of the citizens"
As far as I understand your writing "IT" refers to
settlement payments for lawsuits against the police??? I may be entirely wrong about "IT"

That was one part of my argument.

New York couldn't better spend these millions elsehwhere?

Spending billions on policing, then millions on police misconduct

thats a people problem not a government problem,,,

 

[danielpalos]

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

thats what you are trying to do but I’m not buying it

welfare is government assistance that goes to individuals and the stock market does not fit that defination

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law, like right wingers are wont to do. Firms are considered artificial persons for juridical purposes.

 

[pknopp]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

? police misbehavior is a federal issue?

I explained my position. You can address what I said or try and spin it. I didn't say it was a federal issue. I said it is a state issue that many do not want to address. If addressed the state would have more for the welfare of the citizens.

I don't understand what "If addressed the state
would have more for the welfare of the citizens"
As far as I understand your writing "IT" refers to
settlement payments for lawsuits against the police??? I may be entirely wrong about "IT"

That was one part of my argument.

New York couldn't better spend these millions elsehwhere?

Spending billions on policing, then millions on police misconduct

thats a people problem not a government problem,,,

No it's not.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do right wingers prefer to "hate on the Poor" when the richest are even getting their multimillion dollar bonuses from corporate welfare and not one right winger has accused them of welfare fraud.

Because thats too convoluted to make sense of

lets compromise

ban quantitative easing for wall street and welfare for individuals and we will both get what we want

In other words, you prefer ignorance of economics and a third world economy?

 

[danielpalos]

Why do right wingers prefer to "hate on the Poor" when the richest are even getting their multimillion dollar bonuses from corporate welfare and not one right winger has accused them of welfare fraud.

Because thats too convoluted to make sense of

lets compromise

ban quantitative easing for wall street and welfare for individuals and we will both get what we want

at the fed leval I agree,,,states and locals can do as they see fit due to the fact they can better monitor for abuse,,,

I agree to disagree. States cannot print their own money like the Fed.

 

[danielpalos]

The poor fell further behind.

Where they have remained for 55 years during the failed War on Poverty

libs always say when you are in a hole stop digging

but fail to take their own advice when it comes to welfare

Apparently, right wingers hate being able to win their wars through promotion of the general welfare. Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is now recognized as an automatic stabilizer for an economy.

 

[danielpalos]

So weed should be illegal?

yes Legalizing weed is something like legalizing
prostitution. REMEMBER PANDORA. Not only does she have physical consequences, she is also
ASSOCIATED with a culture of crime. It is nothing like alcohol and cigarettes which are NOT criminal related anymore than is sugar. Alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are all DANGEROUS TO
HEALTH and teeth but they do not involve a
culture of crime

In other words, right wingers are merely practicing the abomination of hypocrisy when it comes to Individual Liberty and natural rights. Why insist on a nanny-State for those things when equal protection of the laws could solve simple poverty?

I incline toward promotion of the ".....general welfare....." when it comes to matters of public
health. as per the preamble to the constitution.
Marijuana use (and prostitution) is not an entirely
"private" thing, just as quarantines and vaccines
(and face masks) is not an entirely "private" thing

I agree to disagree. With equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation women, for example would have a rational choice on whether or not to engage in prostitution for their capital bottom line. Do you agree with me that not all women should engage in prostitution and should have recourse to equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?

 

[Mac-7]

Welfare has stopped what happened in France in the late 18th century.

You mean the french revolution?

I think it was capitalism that raised the standard of living for Americans not government handouts

the war on poverty has enslaved millions of people on the government plantation

 

[danielpalos]

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

No it does not

the term welfare means direct government assistance to individuals

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

And? What is your problem with being legal to our supreme law of the land?

Welfare for homeless bums is not part of the supreme law of the land

that liberal mythology

Why do you "hate on the Poor" under our form of Capitalism? Equal protection of the laws is in our several Constitutions, yet, right wingers have the most problem being legal to our own laws not the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy (under God) with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

[Mac-7]

Why insist on a nanny-State for those things when equal protection of the laws could solve simple poverty?

Could you give an example of where equal protection of the laws is needed?

 

[Mac-7]

That shit went out the window circa 1930’s when father government starting forcing me to pay for the bad decisions of others. I now have an equity share in all bodies...I have a say.

Agreed

end the wipe-every-nose welfare state and drug zombies are no longer any of my business

Things like Quantitative Easing is a part of the welfare state. End the Fed and I will quit arguing for other welfare programs.

That is nothing more than a cop out.

What cop out?

Two wrongs do not make a right

You trying to define welfare as to being what you want it to be is the cop out. Welfare consists of far more than direct payments to people.

Our founders spelled it out perfectly when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”
American taxpayers take great pride in investing in the GENERAL WELFARE of our nation, they love ROi.
Government has taken on the role of inducing economic growth and improving the GENERAL WELFARE through public investment....Ignorant Leftarded fools among us want to view investing in commerce as synonymous with investing in ShaQuita and Guadalupe.
DON’TBE A LEFTARDED FOOL. There is no ROi to be had in ShaQuita and or Guadalupe and forcing taxpayers to award them/pay them to give birth to more of their filthy same is detrimental to American society.

You will define it to provide welfare for yourself and others will do the same according to them.

NEGATIVE
There’s nothing trivial about it...no semantics.
“GENERAL WELFARE” can not be trivialized.
Ain’t that right progressive hunter ?

general welfare means it has to help everyone,,,and paying people that refuse to work hurts everyone and helps no one,,,

Q.E. did not help everyone. The rich did very well. The poor fell further behind.

I agree,,,if a company has hard times and theres a possibility of it getting through it with more money they can go get a loan,,,if not they should be allowed to fail,,,

the fed needed to end decades ago just like welfare,,,at least at the fed level,,,

That's great but let's both agree that is not going to happen so I am going to defend those hurt by those actions.

only tax payers are hurt,,,the unemployed are not,,,

As I said......... your excuses change nothing.

if it is at the state or local level I have little problem with it,,,at the fed level is where I contest it,,,

States may better be able to afford it if they weren't being blamed for the federal government not doing their job and paying out billions a year in settlements with their citizens over police actions.

blah blah blah,,,,

You don't want the states to enforce immigration even though the courts and the constitution says it's a federal matter?

do try and stay on topic,,,youre all over the place,,,

Cowardly reply. You say you want the states to address welfare but you don't want to address the costs the states are undergoing because of the failures of the federal government.

the remedy for that is not paying off the states with federal tax dollars

change what the feds are doing that you dont like

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

It's long been known that Cannabis has a "dumbing-down" effect on individuals intellect. It should be no surprise. Young people just ignore the studies. The same is true of Candy (crack cocaine). It is highly addictive, yet the young prefer to ignore the warnings.
There are just some occupational fields you don't want heavy users of Cannabis, working in, because of its effect on the brain: Surgeon/Physician, Commercial Pilot, Heavy Equipment Operator, Public Transportation Driver, et cetera.
Acceptable occupations for heavy users of Cannabis: Basic Manual Labor, Service Industry.
I emphasize that I'm referring to "heavy users of Cannabis," not some individual who seldom smokes a joint. Even then though, each time you smoke one, you are indeed negatively affecting those neurons between your ears.

Another load of shit. If that is true why at 38 when I had been a heavy user since 16 did I make it on the Dean's list at college while working full time running my business and having hydrocele?

If that is true you should get tested by sending away for a 23andme test, researchers are looking for individuals like you for scientific studies into DNA and Cannabis.