Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Liberty]

Did Flaylo run away with his tail between his legs again?

 

[saveliberty]

so you can't prove it anywhere on the entire internet? lol... well done.

Actually, the dictionary is on line, but you have to pay to access it.

And dollars to donuts, you cherry pick from parts of the definition like you do using only parts of a sentence....

Mr. "I use the common and accepted meaning" really went off the reservation on this one.
You dropped this Mick.

*Hands sock back to Jagger*

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

so you can't prove it anywhere on the entire internet? lol... well done.

The definition of the word "general" is the same in every edition of Johnston's Dictionary from 1755 to 1785 and maybe even to the 1828 edition.

Yet you only give partial definitions.

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.

.. without thought to context.... you know, context... that little thing you have no grasp of and the thing you ignore by only using partial phrases out of sentences

The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

 

[Liberty]

The definition of the word "general" is the same in every edition of Johnston's Dictionary from 1755 to 1785 and maybe even to the 1828 edition.

Yet you only give partial definitions.

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.

.. without thought to context.... you know, context... that little thing you have no grasp of and the thing you ignore by only using partial phrases out of sentences

The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

you throw out of context quotes everywhere, and then attempt to lecture us? Get a fucking clue man.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

To even mention the word socialism in this thread is trolling, seriously, you rightwing nutjobs need to get a life.

 

[Liberty]

To even mention the word socialism in this thread is trolling, seriously, you rightwing nutjobs need to get a life.

looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[DiamondDave]

The definition of the word "general" is the same in every edition of Johnston's Dictionary from 1755 to 1785 and maybe even to the 1828 edition.

Yet you only give partial definitions.

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.

.. without thought to context.... you know, context... that little thing you have no grasp of and the thing you ignore by only using partial phrases out of sentences

The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

usual and 'most ' know does not always apply though... and it has to do with context.. which you continually neglect in your trollish behavior

And I'll give you a hint... the direct object of a sentence is pretty damn important to context

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

what is your definition then?

Slavery is forced servitude.

So, is person B not forced into servitude of person A by payment of their health care?

There is no law that does that, dude.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Yet you only give partial definitions.

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.

.. without thought to context.... you know, context... that little thing you have no grasp of and the thing you ignore by only using partial phrases out of sentences

The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

usual and 'most ' know does not always apply though... and it has to do with context.. which you continually neglect in your trollish behavior

And I'll give you a hint... the direct object of a sentence is pretty damn important to context

Shall I take that to mean you don't follow any sort of rules of construction?

 

[Liberty]

Slavery is forced servitude.

So, is person B not forced into servitude of person A by payment of their health care?

There is no law that does that, dude.

you really are a slow thinker.

 

[DiamondDave]

Slavery is forced servitude.

So, is person B not forced into servitude of person A by payment of their health care?

There is no law that does that, dude.

Medicaid | LII / Legal Information Institute

And MedicAid is just ONE thing that contributors are forced to pay for with non-contributors

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

To even mention the word socialism in this thread is trolling, seriously, you rightwing nutjobs need to get a life.

looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

American love Socialism, that's why the elected Congressmen who would pass a federal law in 1887 to regulate railroads.

 

[DiamondDave]

To even mention the word socialism in this thread is trolling, seriously, you rightwing nutjobs need to get a life.

looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

American love Socialism, that's why the elected Congressmen who would pass a federal law in 1887 to regulate railroads.

So Americans must love W Bush.. and the Iraq conflict... that's why they elected him to fight 2 wars... tell us how you love W Bush

Your lack of logic and refusal to look at reality is amazing

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

So, is person B not forced into servitude of person A by payment of their health care?

There is no law that does that, dude.

Medicaid | LII / Legal Information Institute

And MedicAid is just ONE thing that contributors are forced to pay for with non-contributors

Americans love slavery, socialism and tyranny dude. That's why Medicare is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

American love Socialism, that's why the elected Congressmen who would pass a federal law in 1887 to regulate railroads.

So Americans must love W Bush.. and the Iraq conflict... that's why they elected him to fight 2 wars... tell us how you love W Bush

Your lack of logic and refusal to look at reality is amazing

Americans love Socialism, dude. That's why, in 1888, the people pressured Congress into enacting the federal law providing veterans and the children of veterans with generous pensions.

 

[saveliberty]

There is no law that does that, dude.

Medicaid | LII / Legal Information Institute

And MedicAid is just ONE thing that contributors are forced to pay for with non-contributors

Americans love slavery, socialism and tyranny dude. That's why Medicare is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

Hold on.

*turns off sarcasm meter*

Didn't want to break it.

Why yes, Americans love slavery, socialism and tyranny. That is why we all take our winter vacations in Canada and summer in Cuba.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Medicaid | LII / Legal Information Institute

And MedicAid is just ONE thing that contributors are forced to pay for with non-contributors

Americans love slavery, socialism and tyranny dude. That's why Medicare is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

Hold on.

*turns off sarcasm meter*

Didn't want to break it.

Why yes, Americans love slavery, socialism and tyranny. That is why we all take our winter vacations in Canada and summer in Cuba.

Americans love slavery, socialism and tyranny dude. That's why they demanded the U. S. Government get bigger and intrude into their lives by regulating the combination of business entities that could potentially harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Yet you only give partial definitions.

The rule is,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

I use the first definition for a word because it is the "usual and most known signification" of the word.

.. without thought to context.... you know, context... that little thing you have no grasp of and the thing you ignore by only using partial phrases out of sentences

The rule regarding context is,

If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point
​

If one believes a word is dubious, one can proceed to consider context.

What rules, if any, do you follow?

you throw out of context quotes everywhere, and then attempt to lecture us? Get a fucking clue man.

You interpret the Constitution to suit your personal political views.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

My definition of slavery is forcing an individual to do something that they do not wish to. What is your definition?

Please address the person a and person b argument in a logical fashion, instead of just spouting emotional nonsense that is unproductive to discussion and rational debate.

By your definition of slavery every American is a slave because we're all forced to do different things that we don't like or wish to do. Thats a stupid ass definition definition and a slap in the face to those who were really slaves in America.

I hate to break the news to you, but huh... there is no one living in America that was once a slave, they've pretty much died out. Oh and you do know that there were many blacks that owned slaves as well.

I thought the flying money right considered Social Security to be slavery.

 

[Liberty]

By your definition of slavery every American is a slave because we're all forced to do different things that we don't like or wish to do. Thats a stupid ass definition definition and a slap in the face to those who were really slaves in America.

I hate to break the news to you, but huh... there is no one living in America that was once a slave, they've pretty much died out. Oh and you do know that there were many blacks that owned slaves as well.

I thought the flying money right considered Social Security to be slavery.

the idea of paying into something you don't want, that is not an enumerated power, is indeed forced servitude. my personal belief, i don't speak for anyone but myself.