Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[P@triot]

It's clear that the snowflake queen of memes can only deal in memes (sadly she is attracted to propaganda memes). Here is a factual meme for you, snowflake:

 

[P@triot]

HALF OF AMERICA MAKES 11% OF ALL WAGES, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE TOP 1% "JOPB CREATORS" MAKE BUTTERCUP

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Your dodge on YOUR LIE about Dubya cheering on the Banksters in their Subprime housing bubble noted Cupcake

Wait....what? What in the world does the earning of the Top 1% have to do with George W. Bush and the subprime housing bubble brought on by Bill Clinton and the 1997 Community Re-Investment Act?

 

[P@triot]

Yet the General Welfare clause has been used to get US SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Go figure Cupcake

Yeah...that's what Dumbocrats do, snowflake. They exploit, lie, twist, pervert, and cheat the law. What is your point? Singling that out only hurts your own cause.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The real head scratcher is how we can run three independent investigations, believe in the significance of establishing a senate judiciary and house intelligence committee to handle investigations impartially by demanding an independent investigation, all because democrats trust a news story to be honest in its conclusions over the lack of any evidence producing a crime in the first place.

I believe most of us are familiar with the consequences in starting search parties and using state resources over intensionally, misleading, or false information, I can easily see the same accountability parallel being concluded here surrounding certain newspaper publications. The same penalties ought to apply in the case of intentionally piecing together, reporting falsified or misleading claims, and allowing such strong accusations to be published resulting in the waste of taxpayer dollars. Let these media sources be held responsible for such actions. Flip the investigation around that places the newspaper or media outlet in the hot seat, if such reporting is deemed to have occurred.

Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign
Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign - CNNPolitics.com


CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates


“I was worried by a number of the contacts that the Russians had with U.S. persons,” Brennan said, adding that he did not see proof of collusion before he left office on Jan. 20, but “felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into those issues.”





WAPO
CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates

No evidence of collusion or efforts to alter an election, in fact Hillary's acceptance of finances into her "foundation" from foreign government demonstrates a clear actual physical trail that goes well beyond just a face to face encounter with a foreign official. Financial contributions have a way of producing actual evidence, physical evidence that liberal democrats can't seem to find beyond having "met" someone. Likewise Obama must have been in collusion for simply facing foreign officials prior to his presidency. At least produce some actual evidence that places Trump in a different category from others who ran for the executive office, because these constant assumptions to conspire that is being produced are really pathetic. This is why I will get laughing emojis instead because they can't really say what makes Trump's case different from Hillary or any other politician, as well as the lack of a trail of physical evidence that was clearly evident through Mrs Clintons financial contributions from foreign nations which indictates actual conflict of interest to HER political position..

Actually, there is evidence that Russia interfered in our elections.

The Clinton Foundation is a charity & the Clintons take o money from it. Agent Orange does get foreign monies in his pocket every day from his business interests overseas.

Neither Obama nor Clinton had people lying about Russian contacts.

In response to your reply regarding Clinton "lying", Mrs Clinton only needed to meet privately at a tarmac regarding her investigation in seeking to get herself cleared.

Regarding Russia collusion:
As quoted among those involved in the investigation.

SOURCE 1
CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”


SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, no -- no, it hasn't. …”


BLITZER: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?”


SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence.”


Feinstein: Still No Evidence Of Trump Camp-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 2 There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 3
"President Obama's former director of national intelligence and his former acting CIA director have both said they have seen no evidence of collusion," the official said. "Clapper repeated his assertion today."

The official also pointed to statements from some Democrats who said they had not seen evidence of collusion either.

White House highlights Clapper's lack of evidence on Trump-Russia collusion - CNNPolitics.com

After nearly 5 months of looking into this, it seems rather apparent that these are the only resulting Facts.

Mrs Clinton met who on the tarmac?

How do you find evidence of a collusion if you don't investigate? YOur sorcres did say there wass enough evidence for an investigation.

Hillary Clinton met attorney general Loretta Lynch in a private discussion on a tarmac while her emails were in the middle of an FBI investigation so close to the election. Why the need to be placed in a suspicious face to face encounter at this particular location during such a critical time of the election process where votes are close to being cast towards her presidency ? What kind of deal was she pandering to pad her election success? A "collusion" with an attorney general who has a direct line access connection to an FBI investigation. The same "suspicion" the left wants to try to generate surrounding Trump's claimed suspicions meeting with a Russian foreign diplomat. An attempt to generate guilt without knowing any of the facts, without any evidence disclosing any specific wrongdoing to warrant an investigation. Maybe we need to look into what deals Hillary and Loretta Lybch were planning to try to pass on to guarantee HER path to the presidency, in exchange to drop any further inquiries and squash any possiblity of indictments. Do you see how the liberal democrats llikewaise want to draw their own conclusions first without knowing any of the facts involved, nor specify any actual evidence of wrongdoings having occurred outside of ... "the meeting"? (oh and be sure to read with emphasis added to ensure plenty of drama to generate a much bigger story of importance and make it more newsworthy)

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So logic in your minds is
1. Dirty water, air and shitty standards on our food supply.
2. No regulations on the market place leading to explosive depressions every few years.
3. No education for anyone that doesn't have a few tens of thousand per year to pay for their child to go to school.
4. No investment into infrastructure be it water or roads.
5. Third world healthcare system

That my friend is right wing logic. They really do want to turn America into a third world country.

Actually education, and infrastructure are the responsibility of the state to be able to handle as part of their budget. If healthcare in the United States is so "third world", why exactly do so many other nations seek our specialized surgeons for rare advanced treatments over their own government provided health care system?? They are, as you say, "vastly superior" to handle such cases themselves. Regarding regulations - there were 3,853 of them passed under Obama in 2016 alone, What exactly are the environmental concerns that have been addressed among these 3,853? What can you say was missed among the 3,410 regulations signed by the Obama administration in 2015 that he had to create so much more in 2016? You say cutting regulations will hurt this nation but I bet you can't even name 100 - .just 3% among those recently passed regulations that's so vital to our country.

Education is a matter of national security. Years ago, I had a National Defense Loan to help pay for college. In is our country's best interest to produce well educated citizens. I see no problem with the federal government setting guidelines & helping fund projects.

I like of federal highway system. Its great to know that when the interstate highway I am traveling on does not end at the State line. Again, it is a matter of national security & one reason why it was built in the first place.

The problem with our healthcare system is no quality. It is access for all. No one said it was third world country.

AS for regulations, it is good to protect our waterways & air. It is good to keep Wall Street from not giving us yet another near financial meltdown. New regulations stem from extending existing regulations like requiting clean streams along with clean rivers. New regulations stem from growing technology. New regulations stem from blocking all the ways corporations get around existing regulations.

More often than not, a new regulation is created because some person or some country has found a new way to do harm to someone or our environment or country.

You do realize your local county taxes go to fund educational needs for schools in your area, funding that is also contributed through a state budget. Cutting federal funding does not cut educational needs towards your schools, your state should be able to handle their own budget. The GI Bill is part of our national defense veterans benefit and incentive you receive for taking he time to provide a service to your country. Veterans are supposed to receive benefits out of respect, more than illegals (which is another discussion, as I don't want to drift off topic towards the response here).

Our highways were built and funded by the federal government as part of federal legislation WITH the understanding that maintenance is the job of the state. You heard of tolls, haven't you? The states are fully capable of prioritizing and managing their own budgets, provided there is accountability on where as well as how the taxpayers money is being allocated. The federal government should not be getting involved into roles that were CLEARLY handed over to the state as a part of federal interstate funding.

Health care quality does not get any better simply because the federal government has control of it. Have you been paying attention to what happened to our social security funds that the federal government wanted to get involved in? You also may not have known, because no one has bothered to do any actual "research", that there are families having to set up Go Fund Me pages so their child can receive life saving treatment under the NHS government system in England. Yes, you will find plenty of Go Fund Me pages in Great Britain despite your belief that government can provide better "quality" care.. Apparently that's another lie you just accept as fact because your single payer liberal democrat tells you people wont die and everyone will be ecstatic over your assured "quality" care.... just don't mind all those premium and overall healthcare cost increases.

Regulations, I'm sure you believe that the majority of the nearly 3000 passed in 2015-2016 have to do with the environment, you just never investigated to tell me which ones they are as I suggested. Apparently it's always better to remain ignorant, if you don't know the details of how all these regulations may eventually impact you or what employment you are able to receive. Do you honestly believe small businesses, and new business owners flourish with all these new regulations to keep track of? Small business is what establishes and creates the vast majority of employment in this nation. Perhaps it pays to investigate (as I have said) which regulations in 2016 was so crucial for our nation but they left out in 2015. You can't even site for me which and how many regulations in 2016 have a direct impact on the environment.

 

[JonKoch]

HALF OF AMERICA MAKES 11% OF ALL WAGES, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE TOP 1% "JOPB CREATORS" MAKE BUTTERCUP

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Your dodge on YOUR LIE about Dubya cheering on the Banksters in their Subprime housing bubble noted Cupcake

Wait....what? What in the world does the earning of the Top 1% have to do with George W. Bush and the subprime housing bubble brought on by Bill Clinton and the 1997 Community Re-Investment Act?

Sure Cupcake


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

 

[JonKoch]

Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign
Ex-CIA chief John Brennan: Russians contacted Trump campaign - CNNPolitics.com


CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates


“I was worried by a number of the contacts that the Russians had with U.S. persons,” Brennan said, adding that he did not see proof of collusion before he left office on Jan. 20, but “felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into those issues.”





WAPO
CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates

No evidence of collusion or efforts to alter an election, in fact Hillary's acceptance of finances into her "foundation" from foreign government demonstrates a clear actual physical trail that goes well beyond just a face to face encounter with a foreign official. Financial contributions have a way of producing actual evidence, physical evidence that liberal democrats can't seem to find beyond having "met" someone. Likewise Obama must have been in collusion for simply facing foreign officials prior to his presidency. At least produce some actual evidence that places Trump in a different category from others who ran for the executive office, because these constant assumptions to conspire that is being produced are really pathetic. This is why I will get laughing emojis instead because they can't really say what makes Trump's case different from Hillary or any other politician, as well as the lack of a trail of physical evidence that was clearly evident through Mrs Clintons financial contributions from foreign nations which indictates actual conflict of interest to HER political position..

Actually, there is evidence that Russia interfered in our elections.

The Clinton Foundation is a charity & the Clintons take o money from it. Agent Orange does get foreign monies in his pocket every day from his business interests overseas.

Neither Obama nor Clinton had people lying about Russian contacts.

In response to your reply regarding Clinton "lying", Mrs Clinton only needed to meet privately at a tarmac regarding her investigation in seeking to get herself cleared.

Regarding Russia collusion:
As quoted among those involved in the investigation.

SOURCE 1
CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”


SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, no -- no, it hasn't. …”


BLITZER: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?”


SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence.”


Feinstein: Still No Evidence Of Trump Camp-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 2 There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 3
"President Obama's former director of national intelligence and his former acting CIA director have both said they have seen no evidence of collusion," the official said. "Clapper repeated his assertion today."

The official also pointed to statements from some Democrats who said they had not seen evidence of collusion either.

White House highlights Clapper's lack of evidence on Trump-Russia collusion - CNNPolitics.com

After nearly 5 months of looking into this, it seems rather apparent that these are the only resulting Facts.

Mrs Clinton met who on the tarmac?

How do you find evidence of a collusion if you don't investigate? YOur sorcres did say there wass enough evidence for an investigation.

Hillary Clinton met attorney general Loretta Lynch in a private discussion on a tarmac while her emails were in the middle of an FBI investigation so close to the election. Why the need to be placed in a suspicious face to face encounter at this particular location during such a critical time of the election process where votes are close to being cast towards her presidency ? What kind of deal was she pandering to pad her election success? A "collusion" with an attorney general who has a direct line access connection to an FBI investigation. The same "suspicion" the left wants to try to generate surrounding Trump's claimed suspicions meeting with a Russian foreign diplomat. An attempt to generate guilt without knowing any of the facts, without any evidence disclosing any specific wrongdoing to warrant an investigation. Maybe we need to look into what deals Hillary and Loretta Lybch were planning to try to pass on to guarantee HER path to the presidency, in exchange to drop any further inquiries and squash any possiblity of indictments. Do you see how the liberal democrats llikewaise want to draw their own conclusions first without knowing any of the facts involved, nor specify any actual evidence of wrongdoings having occurred outside of ... "the meeting"? (oh and be sure to read with emphasis added to ensure plenty of drama to generate a much bigger story of importance and make it more newsworthy)

LMAOROG, Hil met huh Cupcake?


No wonder you're always wrong on EVERYTHING (BTW After meeting Bill on the tarmac, Lynch recused herself on the Hil thing which is why Comey took over)

Lynch Will Accept FBI Recommendations on Clinton Emails
Lynch Will Accept FBI Recommendations on Clinton Emails

 

[danielpalos]

Yet the General Welfare clause has been used to get US SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Go figure Cupcake

Yeah...that's what Dumbocrats do, snowflake. They exploit, lie, twist, pervert, and cheat the law. What is your point? Singling that out only hurts your own cause.

It is a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause. You figure it out.

 

[P@triot]

HALF OF AMERICA MAKES 11% OF ALL WAGES, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE TOP 1% "JOPB CREATORS" MAKE BUTTERCUP

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Your dodge on YOUR LIE about Dubya cheering on the Banksters in their Subprime housing bubble noted Cupcake

Wait....what? What in the world does the earning of the Top 1% have to do with George W. Bush and the subprime housing bubble brought on by Bill Clinton and the 1997 Community Re-Investment Act?

Sure Cupcake Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Again dillhole...you were whining about what the Top 1% brings home as opposed to what the bottom 50% brings home. When I asked you if you had a point to their earnings, your idiotic response was "dodging your lie about the housing bubble is duly noted"

Two completely separate subjects which have you horribly confused. Your limited IQ and illiteracy explains why you vote Dumbocrat.

 

[danielpalos]

HALF OF AMERICA MAKES 11% OF ALL WAGES, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE TOP 1% "JOPB CREATORS" MAKE BUTTERCUP

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Your dodge on YOUR LIE about Dubya cheering on the Banksters in their Subprime housing bubble noted Cupcake

Wait....what? What in the world does the earning of the Top 1% have to do with George W. Bush and the subprime housing bubble brought on by Bill Clinton and the 1997 Community Re-Investment Act?

Sure Cupcake Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Again dillhole...you were whining about what the Top 1% brings home as opposed to what the bottom 50% brings home. When I asked you if you had a point to their earnings, your idiotic response was "dodging your lie about the housing bubble is duly noted"

Two completely separate subjects which have you horribly confused. Your limited IQ and illiteracy explains why you vote Dumbocrat.

why should we care what the rich make?

 

[P@triot]

It is a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause. You figure it out.

I figured it out decades ago snowflake. And then I schooled you on it. To the point where you literally ran away like a little bitch because you knew you were dead wrong. We will do it again in this thread, just for fun...

If the left-wing lie about the "General Welfare" clause were true, the Republicans who currently own the House, the Senate, and the White House could pass a law right here and now stating it is for the "general welfare" of the United States to round up all Dumbocrats and execute them (and that would be true - it would be in the best interest of the United States to execute all anti-American communists).

This is the part where you ran like a little bitch. See, of the "General Welfare" clause actually meant what you dimwitted Dumbocrats try to convince the American people it means, it would grant the federal government unlimited power. Anything they deem to be "in the general welfare" would be legal. Sterilization of woman? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Repossessing all firearms? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Extermination of all African-Americans? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Elimination of Freeom of Speech? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America.

Do you see how stupid you sound now? Of course not...you're a Dumbocrat. You lack the self-awareness to realize how stupid you sound. I'll let the revered Thomas Jefferson polish your stupid ass off in front of everyone...

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

Because Thomas Jefferson knew how dumb you federalists are, he clarified a second time...

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

You're wrong and even you know it. This could not be more clear - even for illiterate Dumbocrats.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause. You figure it out.

I figured it out decades ago snowflake. And then I schooled you on it. To the point where you literally ran away like a little bitch because you knew you were dead wrong. We will do it again in this thread, just for fun...

If the left-wing lie about the "General Welfare" clause were true, the Republicans who currently own the House, the Senate, and the White House could pass a law right here and now stating it is for the "general welfare" of the United States to round up all Dumbocrats and execute them (and that would be true - it would be in the best interest of the United States to execute all anti-American communists).

This is the part where you ran like a little bitch. See, of the "General Welfare" clause actually meant what you dimwitted Dumbocrats try to convince the American people it means, it would grant the federal government unlimited power. Anything they deem to be "in the general welfare" would be legal. Sterilization of woman? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Repossessing all firearms? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Extermination of all African-Americans? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Elimination of Freeom of Speech? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America.

Do you see how stupid you sound now? Of course not...you're a Dumbocrat. You lack the self-awareness to realize how stupid you sound. I'll let the revered Thomas Jefferson polish your stupid ass off in front of everyone...

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

Because Thomas Jefferson knew how dumb you federalists are, he clarified a second time...

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

You're wrong and even you know it. This could not be more clear - even for illiterate Dumbocrats.

You have nothing but propaganda. The welfare clause is General not Common. Thus, anything for the common offense can be applied to anything in General.

 

[deanrd]

Jimmy Kimmel's recent viral monologue is a prime example of how the left values irrational emotions over logic and reason. That is why the left supports failed ideologies such as socialism, communism, etc. Because it feels good to them. They could care less that it ends in poverty, misery, and collapse.

Jimmy Kimmel illustrated this universal truth once again when he cried during his monologue about his baby (who is ok now) and proclaimed how nobody should have to decide between saving their child's life and money (as if anyone has ever had to make that "choice"). Life saving procedures cannot be denied regardless of a person's ability to pay. In addition to that inconvenient little fact, there is this gem:

The care, technology, and life saving treatment his family experienced was made possible by two, privately funded organizations. Both Cedars Sinai and Children’s Hospital LA are non-profit, not government-run, hospitals. This isn’t a coincidence.

When individuals are allowed to fund programs they like without a government mandate, we end up with more efficient and effective services. Hospitals are only one very important example.

Jimmy Kimmel’s Moving Story Shows Why Private Charity Trumps Government

Those private hospitals are great, I'm sure, but they sure are more expensive than most of the population can afford. So explain to me again how our current healthcare system is accessible to all? People can't afford to visit a hospital when they've got Obamacare--their $10,000 + deductibles are prohibitive. Same with doctor's visits. Kimmel as a father has every right to tear up relating the close call his newborn went through. You guys slamming "emotion" vs. "logic" aren't doing so hot when it comes to finding an actual solution to the problem, though. More and more people can't afford to visit doctors. Fix it.

St Jude childrens hospital provides treatments for free, and they provide housing for the parents.
Supported with donations.
The difference being, conservatives give to charity, leftists do not.

St. Jude's is wonderful, but I did not know it was 100% a conservative organization. No leftists are allowed to contribute, huh? I thought it was a Mason's hospital. Am I confusing it with another one?

We all know the left hardly give anything to charity, study after study shows it. You playing stupid simply shows your level of involvement.

Are you kidding. Red states are charity cases. They soak the money from money making Blue states.

Republicans give an old can of creamed corn to some church and talk about all the charity they give.

Democrats invest in college scholarships which isn't counted a charity. Because Democrats don't want charity. They want jobs. Republicans want food stamps and welfare.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That's' what Democrats believe.

Republicans: F*ck 'em. Let him die. But give him that can of cream corn first so we can pretend we are charitable.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Jimmy Kimmel's recent viral monologue is a prime example of how the left values irrational emotions over logic and reason. That is why the left supports failed ideologies such as socialism, communism, etc. Because it feels good to them. They could care less that it ends in poverty, misery, and collapse.

Jimmy Kimmel illustrated this universal truth once again when he cried during his monologue about his baby (who is ok now) and proclaimed how nobody should have to decide between saving their child's life and money (as if anyone has ever had to make that "choice"). Life saving procedures cannot be denied regardless of a person's ability to pay. In addition to that inconvenient little fact, there is this gem:
Jimmy Kimmel’s Moving Story Shows Why Private Charity Trumps Government

Those private hospitals are great, I'm sure, but they sure are more expensive than most of the population can afford. So explain to me again how our current healthcare system is accessible to all? People can't afford to visit a hospital when they've got Obamacare--their $10,000 + deductibles are prohibitive. Same with doctor's visits. Kimmel as a father has every right to tear up relating the close call his newborn went through. You guys slamming "emotion" vs. "logic" aren't doing so hot when it comes to finding an actual solution to the problem, though. More and more people can't afford to visit doctors. Fix it.

St Jude childrens hospital provides treatments for free, and they provide housing for the parents.
Supported with donations.
The difference being, conservatives give to charity, leftists do not.

St. Jude's is wonderful, but I did not know it was 100% a conservative organization. No leftists are allowed to contribute, huh? I thought it was a Mason's hospital. Am I confusing it with another one?

We all know the left hardly give anything to charity, study after study shows it. You playing stupid simply shows your level of involvement.

Are you kidding. Red states are charity cases. They soak the money from money making Blue states.

Republicans give an old can of creamed corn to some church and talk about all the charity they give.

Democrats invest in college scholarships which isn't counted a charity. Because Democrats don't want charity. They want jobs. Republicans want food stamps and welfare.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That's' what Democrats believe.

Republicans: F*ck 'em. Let him die. But give him that can of cream corn first so we can pretend we are charitable.

More left wing claptrap void of any facts.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

 

[P@triot]

It is a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause. You figure it out.

I figured it out decades ago snowflake. And then I schooled you on it. To the point where you literally ran away like a little bitch because you knew you were dead wrong. We will do it again in this thread, just for fun...

If the left-wing lie about the "General Welfare" clause were true, the Republicans who currently own the House, the Senate, and the White House could pass a law right here and now stating it is for the "general welfare" of the United States to round up all Dumbocrats and execute them (and that would be true - it would be in the best interest of the United States to execute all anti-American communists).

This is the part where you ran like a little bitch. See, of the "General Welfare" clause actually meant what you dimwitted Dumbocrats try to convince the American people it means, it would grant the federal government unlimited power. Anything they deem to be "in the general welfare" would be legal. Sterilization of woman? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Repossessing all firearms? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Extermination of all African-Americans? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Elimination of Freeom of Speech? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America.

Do you see how stupid you sound now? Of course not...you're a Dumbocrat. You lack the self-awareness to realize how stupid you sound. I'll let the revered Thomas Jefferson polish your stupid ass off in front of everyone...

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

Because Thomas Jefferson knew how dumb you federalists are, he clarified a second time...

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

You're wrong and even you know it. This could not be more clear - even for illiterate Dumbocrats.

You have nothing but propaganda. The welfare clause is General not Common. Thus, anything for the common offense can be applied to anything in General.

So the Republicans can constitutionally pass a bill this afternoon making it a requirement of the government to execute all Dumbocrats this week because it is "in the general welfare" of the United States to do so?

 

[P@triot]

You have nothing but propaganda.

"Propaganda" I just quoted Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson is "propaganda" in your mind?

You're literally so ignorant - you don't even know what the term propaganda means. You just parrot what you hear conservatives say to you.

 

[JonKoch]

Those private hospitals are great, I'm sure, but they sure are more expensive than most of the population can afford. So explain to me again how our current healthcare system is accessible to all? People can't afford to visit a hospital when they've got Obamacare--their $10,000 + deductibles are prohibitive. Same with doctor's visits. Kimmel as a father has every right to tear up relating the close call his newborn went through. You guys slamming "emotion" vs. "logic" aren't doing so hot when it comes to finding an actual solution to the problem, though. More and more people can't afford to visit doctors. Fix it.

St Jude childrens hospital provides treatments for free, and they provide housing for the parents.
Supported with donations.
The difference being, conservatives give to charity, leftists do not.

St. Jude's is wonderful, but I did not know it was 100% a conservative organization. No leftists are allowed to contribute, huh? I thought it was a Mason's hospital. Am I confusing it with another one?

We all know the left hardly give anything to charity, study after study shows it. You playing stupid simply shows your level of involvement.

Are you kidding. Red states are charity cases. They soak the money from money making Blue states.

Republicans give an old can of creamed corn to some church and talk about all the charity they give.

Democrats invest in college scholarships which isn't counted a charity. Because Democrats don't want charity. They want jobs. Republicans want food stamps and welfare.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That's' what Democrats believe.

Republicans: F*ck 'em. Let him die. But give him that can of cream corn first so we can pretend we are charitable.

More left wing claptrap void of any facts.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth



Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.


However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

 

[JonKoch]

You have nothing but propaganda.

"Propaganda" I just quoted Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson is "propaganda" in your mind?

You're literally so ignorant - you don't even know what the term propaganda means. You just parrot what you hear conservatives say to you.

Alex Hamilton:

"..These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou’d have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition."

APPARENTLY SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF TJ ON THIS RIGHT CUPCAKE? SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SNAP, ETC...

 

[JonKoch]

You have nothing but propaganda.

"Propaganda" I just quoted Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson is "propaganda" in your mind?

You're literally so ignorant - you don't even know what the term propaganda means. You just parrot what you hear conservatives say to you.

"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." Ben Franklin

 

[P@triot]

You have to love left-wing "logic" - Thomas Jefferson is "propaganda"