Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks dimwit...you just proved nothing with that quote from one of the biggest tools in U.S. history. As every educated American has stated over and over throughout history - yes, the "General Welfare" clause was "comprehensive". It was "comprehensive" by design - for their 18 enumerated powers and not one damn more.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."
"Propaganda"You have nothing but 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.
What is your point? The left stacked the Supreme Court with a bunch of political activists who knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution for their agenda. All you're doing is proving how corrupt the left is.APPARENTLY SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF TJ ON THIS RIGHT CUPCAKE? SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SNAP, ETC...
Thanks dimwit...you just proved nothing with that quote from one of the biggest tools in U.S. history. As every educated American has stated over and over throughout history - yes, the "General Welfare" clause was "comprehensive". It was "comprehensive" by design - for their 18 enumerated powers and not one damn more.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."
Dumb ass.
If you're going to post a quote - post one that actually backs up your position.
What is your point? The left stacked the Supreme Court with a bunch of political activists who knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution for their agenda. All you're doing is proving how corrupt the left is.APPARENTLY SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF TJ ON THIS RIGHT CUPCAKE? SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SNAP, ETC...
I just provided the quote from Thomas Jefferson, you dumb little monkey....What is your point? The left stacked the Supreme Court with a bunch of political activists who knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution for their agenda. All you're doing is proving how corrupt the left is.APPARENTLY SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF TJ ON THIS RIGHT CUPCAKE? SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SNAP, ETC...
Got it, you can't point to TJ (OR Madison) placing that quote in the US Constitution, but are upset at 100+ years of SCOTUS saying your are full of shit
Thanks dimwit...you just proved nothing with that quote from one of the biggest tools in U.S. history. As every educated American has stated over and over throughout history - yes, the "General Welfare" clause was "comprehensive". It was "comprehensive" by design - for their 18 enumerated powers and not one damn more.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."
Dumb ass.
If you're going to post a quote - post one that actually backs up your position.
Snowflake....I'm not upset. I just owned you. I provided quotes from the founders who were the architects behind our entire system of government. Not only that, but I made you my bitch by posing a simple question that you ran from like a little girl (and I can't say I blame you - because it exposes your idiocy and hypocrisy).Got it, you can't point to TJ (OR Madison) placing that quote in the US Constitution, but are upset at 100+ years of SCOTUS saying your are full of shit
Actually, there is evidence that Russia interfered in our elections.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..
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.
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
: lol:
I just provided the quote from Thomas Jefferson, you dumb little monkey....What is your point? The left stacked the Supreme Court with a bunch of political activists who knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution for their agenda. All you're doing is proving how corrupt the left is.APPARENTLY SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF TJ ON THIS RIGHT CUPCAKE? SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SNAP, ETC...
Got it, you can't point to TJ (OR Madison) placing that quote in the US Constitution, but are upset at 100+ years of SCOTUS saying your are full of shit
What is your point? The left stacked the Supreme Court with a bunch of political activists who knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution for their agenda. All you're doing is proving how corrupt the left is.APPARENTLY SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF TJ ON THIS RIGHT CUPCAKE? SS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SNAP, ETC...
Snowflake....I'm not upset. I just owned you. I provided quotes from the founders who were the architects behind our entire system of government. Not only that, but I made you my bitch by posing a simple question that you ran from like a little girl (and I can't say I blame you - because it exposes your idiocy and hypocrisy).Got it, you can't point to TJ (OR Madison) placing that quote in the US Constitution, but are upset at 100+ years of SCOTUS saying your are full of shit
You've proven your ignorant of everything - especially U.S. history. Alexander Hamilton was such an asshole - so hated by his fellow founders - that Vice President Aaron Burr shot and killed him in a "duel". Thomas Jefferson vehemently hated him as well (and Thomas Jefferson was beloved).Sure Cupcake, if the US American Economic School of thought presented largely by Hamilton, was a "tool"...Thanks dimwit...you just proved nothing with that quote from one of the biggest tools in U.S. history.
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.
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
It was only a simple face to face meeting, right fruitcake? Despite the unusually manner and location that this private meeting had been conducted. Without knowledge of what took place, no knowledge of what was being said, no evidence... just a cloud of suspicion if the media wanted to try and generate one That outcome being there was no further investigation into Hillary's emails with no calls to indictment to grant her the clear opportunity she wanted for president ( very convenient ), we only need to accept and take Loretta Lynch at her word there was no attempt to influence the outcome to aid Mrs Clinton in her executive ambitions. Just as Sessions spoke with Trump and removed HIMSELF from the situation, stating there was no wrong doing in HIS private meeting prior to an election, just a face to face encounter there as well, nothing spoken that can conveniently give Trump his opportunity to become commander in chief, absolutely no evidence provided of any wrong doing at all outside of just the meeting. This is why Senator Feinstein commented to Wokf Blitzer stating that despite access to all the classified information she has seen, after months of investigating, no evidence of any wrong doing is what she is on record of reporting.
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.”
With Hillary you at least was able to produce emails (evidence) found at Senator Weiner's private home, some form of aactual physical trail. With Trump ... nothing, no evidence, no trail. Isn't that right Fruitcake? All this really is, are liberal democrats throwing their tantrum "Not my president" fits, looking to find some excuse because they did not like the outcome. Had this been Obama, with cries from a candidate that had to make a concession speech and demonstrations to resist!! Watch out --- they must all be RACIST. Right fruitcake?
That's because it's not an "interpretation". It's a simple fact.Weird you didn't show where TJ placed HIS INTERPRETATION into the Constitution Buttercup? Why is that?
100 years of rulings on this issue? Please post those for us. Assuming there were a mere two per year (and that is being more than generous), that means you need to provide 200 cases where the Supreme Court ruled that the "General Welfare" clause grants unlimited power to the federal government.Sure Cupcake, 100+ years of rulings were stacked by the "heft", lol
You've proven your ignorant of everything - especially U.S. history. Alexander Hamilton was such an asshole - so hated by his fellow founders - that Vice President Aaron Burr shot and killed him in a "duel". Thomas Jefferson vehemently hated him as well (and Thomas Jefferson was beloved).Sure Cupcake, if the US American Economic School of thought presented largely by Hamilton, was a "tool"...Thanks dimwit...you just proved nothing with that quote from one of the biggest tools in U.S. history.
Thanks for playing snowflake. And thanks for illustrating your ignorance to everyone on the board.
100 years of rulings on this issue? Please post those for us. Assuming there were a mere two per year (and that is being more than generous), that means you need to provide 200 cases where the Supreme Court ruled that the "General Welfare" clause grants unlimited power to the federal government.Sure Cupcake, 100+ years of rulings were stacked by the "heft", lol
