Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is what it is about. everybody knows, the right wing doesn't care about natural rights if it is not specifically about Arms.

Lower spending, lower taxes, a balanced budget, no debt is a stronger nation and one that is able to take care of those in need. Overspending, high taxes, high debt chokes a nation of its ability to take care of their poor. Simple economics.

end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they can't be that serious since you don't want to pay war time tax rates for them.

I have told you my stance on all these items yet you persist in your stupidity and sidetracking the conversation.

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

 

[Meister]

Lower spending, lower taxes, a balanced budget, no debt is a stronger nation and one that is able to take care of those in need. Overspending, high taxes, high debt chokes a nation of its ability to take care of their poor. Simple economics.

end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they can't be that serious since you don't want to pay war time tax rates for them.

I have told you my stance on all these items yet you persist in your stupidity and sidetracking the conversation.

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Well, funny thing there......when you get them the jobs, they tend not to need the social services.
Think about that, okay?

 

[Papageorgio]

Lower spending, lower taxes, a balanced budget, no debt is a stronger nation and one that is able to take care of those in need. Overspending, high taxes, high debt chokes a nation of its ability to take care of their poor. Simple economics.

end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they can't be that serious since you don't want to pay war time tax rates for them.

I have told you my stance on all these items yet you persist in your stupidity and sidetracking the conversation.

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Show me where I said what you stated or are you going to continue to lie? You keep lying about what I stand for, is it for diversion because you can't back up your line of BS? Either put up or shut up, I really don't care. I have lost my patience in dealing with morons such as yourself.

 

[hadit]

What the hell is "means testing"?

why take my word for it?

Means test - Wikipedia

While you're at it, post the meaning of "unemployed".

any adult who is not employed.

Not in this context. Unemployed in this context means willing to work but unable. What you mean by the term is unwilling to work even though able.

naturally unemployed by Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

 

[hadit]

Lower spending, lower taxes, a balanced budget, no debt is a stronger nation and one that is able to take care of those in need. Overspending, high taxes, high debt chokes a nation of its ability to take care of their poor. Simple economics.

end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they can't be that serious since you don't want to pay war time tax rates for them.

I have told you my stance on all these items yet you persist in your stupidity and sidetracking the conversation.

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Saying stupid things like that is why no one takes you seriously about anything, ever.

 

[BluesLegend]

This thread title is still hilarious hundreds of posts later

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Providing welfare was not established until 1935 under President Roosevelt, it is not quoted as being the desire of our Founders when they used the language “promote the general welfare”..

If that’s what you believe, provide some evidence of it.

Both terms Promote and Provide are used in reference to the general welfare.

Actually no. That particular section of the preamble reads: “ provide for the common defense, (comma) .... promote the general welfare, (comma). Now let’s look at the sentence “structure”. That particular wording pertains to two different subject matters, each one separated through the use of a comma.

Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare

“Provide and promote the general welfare” is what, I believe, you HOPE to find.

So it would appear that you failed in English class, as well as your knowledge of the United States Constitution. What’s next?

too bad for you, the preamble is our mission statement. the delegated powers are in Article 1, Section 8.

Too bad for you you just tried to use the preamble as your reference, to say the Federal Government does both promote and provide general welfare. You can sound like an idiot all you want, if you choose.

Again, (1) take the time to actually READ the Constitution, (2) come back with an actual Article and Section where it’s written the role of the Federal Government is to provide welfare.

i already read it. You don't know what you are talking about. You have no "gospel Truth" for simply being on the right wing.

Actually you didn’t,

None of your responses makes reference to the article and clause that supports your position of providing for the general welfare. You’re clearly dodging the issue at this point, because you can’t provide one.

As well as your reference to the preamble of the Constitution, has already been proven incorrect. Promote is clearly different than provide.

So thank you, you’ve just proven my point. You can’t provide a constitutional article to reference from. Until your response begins with a United States Constitutional article and clause reference, that backs your view, you really have nothing. My reply to you will not be any different until you do. Give me any OTHER response than that article and clause, it only means you have no reference which you can provide that actually backs your point.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

Actually having a dependency on government to be your provider to supply all your needs is socialism. As well there is nothing in the Constitution that supports this, as you have not shown where this is written. Once again Daniel is proven to have fallen short on his knowledge of the subject.

 

[danielpalos]

end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they can't be that serious since you don't want to pay war time tax rates for them.

I have told you my stance on all these items yet you persist in your stupidity and sidetracking the conversation.

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Well, funny thing there......when you get them the jobs, they tend not to need the social services.
Think about that, okay?

the law is employment at the will of either party. why be illegal to the law, but blame less fortunate illegals.

 

[danielpalos]

end our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they can't be that serious since you don't want to pay war time tax rates for them.

I have told you my stance on all these items yet you persist in your stupidity and sidetracking the conversation.

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Show me where I said what you stated or are you going to continue to lie? You keep lying about what I stand for, is it for diversion because you can't back up your line of BS? Either put up or shut up, I really don't care. I have lost my patience in dealing with morons such as yourself.

That is what the right wing prefers to do. Cut social services for the Poor so they can cut taxes for the rich.

 

[danielpalos]

why take my word for it?

Means test - Wikipedia

While you're at it, post the meaning of "unemployed".

any adult who is not employed.

Not in this context. Unemployed in this context means willing to work but unable. What you mean by the term is unwilling to work even though able.

naturally unemployed by Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms Promote and Provide are used in reference to the general welfare.

Actually no. That particular section of the preamble reads: “ provide for the common defense, (comma) .... promote the general welfare, (comma). Now let’s look at the sentence “structure”. That particular wording pertains to two different subject matters, each one separated through the use of a comma.

Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare

“Provide and promote the general welfare” is what, I believe, you HOPE to find.

So it would appear that you failed in English class, as well as your knowledge of the United States Constitution. What’s next?

too bad for you, the preamble is our mission statement. the delegated powers are in Article 1, Section 8.

Too bad for you you just tried to use the preamble as your reference, to say the Federal Government does both promote and provide general welfare. You can sound like an idiot all you want, if you choose.

Again, (1) take the time to actually READ the Constitution, (2) come back with an actual Article and Section where it’s written the role of the Federal Government is to provide welfare.

i already read it. You don't know what you are talking about. You have no "gospel Truth" for simply being on the right wing.

Actually you didn’t,

None of your responses makes reference to the article and clause that supports your position of providing for the general welfare. You’re clearly dodging the issue at this point, because you can’t provide one.

As well as your reference to the preamble of the Constitution, has already been proven incorrect. Promote is clearly different than provide.

So thank you, you’ve just proven my point. You can’t provide a constitutional article to reference from. Until your response begins with a United States Constitutional article and clause reference, that backs your view, you really have nothing. My reply to you will not be any different until you do. Give me any OTHER response than that article and clause, it only means you have no reference which you can provide that actually backs your point.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[danielpalos]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

Actually having a dependency on government to be your provider to supply all your needs is socialism. As well there is nothing in the Constitution that supports this, as you have not shown where this is written. Once again Daniel is proven to have fallen short on his knowledge of the subject.

the right wing is good on projection, not facts.

 

[hadit]

While you're at it, post the meaning of "unemployed".

any adult who is not employed.

Not in this context. Unemployed in this context means willing to work but unable. What you mean by the term is unwilling to work even though able.

naturally unemployed by Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

 

[Papageorgio]

I have told you my stance on all these items yet you persist in your stupidity and sidetracking the conversation.

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Show me where I said what you stated or are you going to continue to lie? You keep lying about what I stand for, is it for diversion because you can't back up your line of BS? Either put up or shut up, I really don't care. I have lost my patience in dealing with morons such as yourself.

That is what the right wing prefers to do. Cut social services for the Poor so they can cut taxes for the rich.

Again, you failed to prove what was asked, you are being deceitful, dishonest and out and out lying. You said I prefer to cut social spending, again prove it.

 

[danielpalos]

any adult who is not employed.

Not in this context. Unemployed in this context means willing to work but unable. What you mean by the term is unwilling to work even though able.

naturally unemployed by Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

 

[danielpalos]

...Because you prefer to cut social spending on the Poor.

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Show me where I said what you stated or are you going to continue to lie? You keep lying about what I stand for, is it for diversion because you can't back up your line of BS? Either put up or shut up, I really don't care. I have lost my patience in dealing with morons such as yourself.

That is what the right wing prefers to do. Cut social services for the Poor so they can cut taxes for the rich.

Again, you failed to prove what was asked, you are being deceitful, dishonest and out and out lying. You said I prefer to cut social spending, again prove it.

ok. don't let me catch you preferring to cut social spending.

 

[Papageorgio]

Really? Where have I stated that? Again, you are making up BS to sidetrack the issues at hand, if you aren't going to be honest then I am done.

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Show me where I said what you stated or are you going to continue to lie? You keep lying about what I stand for, is it for diversion because you can't back up your line of BS? Either put up or shut up, I really don't care. I have lost my patience in dealing with morons such as yourself.

That is what the right wing prefers to do. Cut social services for the Poor so they can cut taxes for the rich.

Again, you failed to prove what was asked, you are being deceitful, dishonest and out and out lying. You said I prefer to cut social spending, again prove it.

ok. don't let me catch you preferring to cut social spending.

I want to cut all spending not just social.

 

[danielpalos]

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Show me where I said what you stated or are you going to continue to lie? You keep lying about what I stand for, is it for diversion because you can't back up your line of BS? Either put up or shut up, I really don't care. I have lost my patience in dealing with morons such as yourself.

That is what the right wing prefers to do. Cut social services for the Poor so they can cut taxes for the rich.

Again, you failed to prove what was asked, you are being deceitful, dishonest and out and out lying. You said I prefer to cut social spending, again prove it.

ok. don't let me catch you preferring to cut social spending.

I want to cut all spending not just social.

all Talk?

 

[hadit]

Not in this context. Unemployed in this context means willing to work but unable. What you mean by the term is unwilling to work even though able.

naturally unemployed by Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

That's not what you mean. You want to count as deserving of taxpayer money those who can offer something of value but who refuse.

employment is at the will of either party. there can be no work requirement.

Of course there can be a work requirement.

is there a hiring requirement?

Two different things, not related.