Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[Mac1958]

The guy currently in the White House is there due to a combination of frustration and rage. His presidency is a political primal scream. As far as I know, those are emotions.

Only if one believes the supreme idiocy of your post. Donald Trump has been a successful international businessman for decades. His election made perfect sense and his astoundingly successful first few months has justified the voters faith in him.

Mr President?
.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no drug war clause; there is a general welfare clause.

Yep - and that "General Welfare" clause applies to the 18 enumerated powers only.

Your ignorance of the U.S. Constitution is why nobody takes the left seriously about anything.

Nope. Art I, sec 8, clause 1 "...(and) provide for the common defense (polio inoculations) and general Welfare of the United States" (providing federal funds such as FEMA to states suffering natural disasters). Only fools argue that some parts of COTUS mean exactly what is written (i.e. "shall not be infringed"); yet, other parts, less ambiguous than the 2nd A. which they believe is set in concrete (and yet in practice not applied universally) is immutable.

Of course your interpretation, and that of other hypocrites like you, use Marbury v. Madison arbitrarily.

 

[P@triot]

Only fools argue that some parts of COTUS mean exactly what is written (i.e. "shall not be infringed"); yet, other parts, less ambiguous than the 2nd A. which they believe is set in concrete (and yet in practice not applied universally) is immutable.

The "general welfare clause" was neither an enumerated power nor a right outlined in the Bill of Rights. It was merely a phrase the founders used in avoiding having to itemize every possible item that taxes would require under each of those 18 enumerated powers. A phrase that you desperate Dumbocrats have attempted to exploit out of your desire for power and contempt for the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately for you - the founders made it crystal clear in their subsequent writings:

“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)

Eight years later, he would clarify if yet again:

“[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)

Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you on many occasions (and your disingenuous ass turned and ran from each and every time), if your idiotic version of the constitution were even remotely true, President Trump and the Republicans could execute all progressives today under the "General Welfare" clause because ridding the U.S. of the cancer known as progressivism would in fact be for the "general welfare" of the U.S.

So you agree that President Trump and the Republicans are authorized by the U.S. Constitution to immediately execute all left-wing citizens? Thanks for playing Wry.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. That would be a specific or merely major welfare clause. A general welfare clause embraces any opportunity to advance, the general Welfare.

Your uninformed, uneducated opinion is irrelevant. The people behind the U.S. Constitution were quite clear:

“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)

Eight years later, he would clarify if yet again. He could not be more crystal clear:

“[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)

Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you on many occasions (and your disingenuous ass turned and ran from each and every time), if your idiotic version of the constitution were even remotely true, President Trump and the Republicans could execute all progressives today under the "General Welfare" clause because ridding the U.S. of the cancer known as progressivism would in fact be for the "general welfare" of the U.S.

So you agree that President Trump and the Republicans are authorized by the U.S. Constitution to immediately execute all left-wing citizens? Uh buh-bye, snowflake!

There is no common offense or general warfare clause. Isn't it disingenuous of the right wing, to quibble now?

 

[P@triot]

There is no common offense or general warfare clause. Isn't it disingenuous of the right wing, to quibble now?

So you do agree that President Trump and the Republicans can execute all left-wing citizens today since that is in the "general welfare" of the United States?

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Oops...

 

[danielpalos]

There is no common offense or general warfare clause. Isn't it disingenuous of the right wing, to quibble now?

So you do agree that President Trump and the Republicans can execute all left-wing citizens today since that is in the "general welfare" of the United States?

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Oops...

We have a Bill of Rights, that also, explain and qualify the powers delegated to our federal Congress.

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no common offense or general warfare clause. Isn't it disingenuous of the right wing, to quibble now?

So you do agree that President Trump and the Republicans can execute all left-wing citizens today since that is in the "general welfare" of the United States?

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Oops...

We have a Bill of Rights, that also, explain and qualify the powers delegated to our federal Congress.

Looks like @P@troit wins this argument, you painted yourself into a corner, nice work?

 

[P@triot]

We have a Bill of Rights, that also, explain and qualify the powers delegated to our federal Congress.

So now you are claiming that the U.S. Constitution contradicts itself. On one hand, you claim the "general welfare" clause gives it unlimited power to do anything so long as they proclaim what they are doing is in the "general welfare" of the U.S. On the other hand, you want to hide behind the Bill of Rights and claim it protects you from the big, bad government that you want to have unlimited power.

Once again my friend - you can't have it both ways. The U.S. Constitution does not contradict itself. It was written by men a gabillion times brighter than you are. You are the one contradicting yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

 

[P@triot]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

And yet you just contradicted it. You said that the federal government has unlimited power under the "general welfare clause". When I pointed out that that means President Trump and the Republicans could immediately execute all lefties (since they really are bad for America and executing them really would be for the "general welfare" of America), you immediately hid behind the "Bill of Rights" and claimed that it protected you from the government.

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Either the government can execute you under the "general welfare clause" or the "general welfare clause" applies to the 18 enumerated powers only (as our founders clearly stated). Which is it danielpalos? You can't have it both ways chief.

 

[Papageorgio]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

The contradiction isn't the Constitution, you are the one contradicting yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

And yet you just contradicted it. You said that the federal government has unlimited power under the "general welfare clause". When I pointed out that that means President Trump and the Republicans could immediately execute all lefties (since they really are bad for America and executing them really would be for the "general welfare" of America), you immediately hid behind the "Bill of Rights" and claimed that it protected you from the government.

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Either the government can execute you under the "general welfare clause" or the "general welfare clause" applies to the 18 enumerated powers only (as our founders clearly stated). Which is it danielpalos? You can't have it both ways chief.

We have a Bill of Rights that gives some indication of what was meant, by the general welfare.

 

[P@triot]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

And yet you just contradicted it. You said that the federal government has unlimited power under the "general welfare clause". When I pointed out that that means President Trump and the Republicans could immediately execute all lefties (since they really are bad for America and executing them really would be for the "general welfare" of America), you immediately hid behind the "Bill of Rights" and claimed that it protected you from the government.

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Either the government can execute you under the "general welfare clause" or the "general welfare clause" applies to the 18 enumerated powers only (as our founders clearly stated). Which is it danielpalos? You can't have it both ways chief.

We have a Bill of Rights that gives some indication of what was meant, by the general welfare.

So now you're saying the "general welfare clause" doesn't say what you previously claimed it did? How interesting.

Please cite for everyone where the Bill of Righfs mentions (and I quote) "what was meant by the general welfare".

 

[danielpalos]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

And yet you just contradicted it. You said that the federal government has unlimited power under the "general welfare clause". When I pointed out that that means President Trump and the Republicans could immediately execute all lefties (since they really are bad for America and executing them really would be for the "general welfare" of America), you immediately hid behind the "Bill of Rights" and claimed that it protected you from the government.

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Either the government can execute you under the "general welfare clause" or the "general welfare clause" applies to the 18 enumerated powers only (as our founders clearly stated). Which is it danielpalos? You can't have it both ways chief.

We have a Bill of Rights that gives some indication of what was meant, by the general welfare.

So now you're saying the "general welfare clause" doesn't say what you previously claimed it did? How interesting.

Please cite for everyone where the Bill of Righfs mentions (and I quote) "what was meant by the general welfare".

The General welfare is General, not major or specific. Any more questions, dear?

 

[P@triot]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

And yet you just contradicted it. You said that the federal government has unlimited power under the "general welfare clause". When I pointed out that that means President Trump and the Republicans could immediately execute all lefties (since they really are bad for America and executing them really would be for the "general welfare" of America), you immediately hid behind the "Bill of Rights" and claimed that it protected you from the government.

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Either the government can execute you under the "general welfare clause" or the "general welfare clause" applies to the 18 enumerated powers only (as our founders clearly stated). Which is it danielpalos? You can't have it both ways chief.

We have a Bill of Rights that gives some indication of what was meant, by the general welfare.

So now you're saying the "general welfare clause" doesn't say what you previously claimed it did? How interesting.

Please cite for everyone where the Bill of Righfs mentions (and I quote) "what was meant by the general welfare".

The General welfare is General, not major or specific. Any more questions, dear?

Yeah - the general welfare of their explicit 18 enumerated powers, snowflake.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing ends in failure like idiotic left-wing policy...

In a shocking development, the Philadelphia soda tax is a big fucking fail. Who could have predicted that. Democrat government drones and their brain dead minions are so desperate for money to fund their gold plated union pensions and bloated salaries, they lie, cheat and tax the poor into oblivion. Result: lost jobs, further impoverished poor people, no help for children, more closed businesses, and a further hole in the city budget. But at least the city union workers can keep their gold plated pensions – for now. Maff is hard for liberals, but it always wins in the end.

Every time the left implements a policy, crime increases, substance abuse increases, and debt increases, while jobs decrease, incomes decrease, and liberty decreases. That's because the left uses emotion to form policy instead of logic and reason.

From Coke To Coors: Philly Soda Tax Leading To Alcoholism As Beer Now Cheaper Than Soda | Zero Hedge

 

[P@triot]

It's good to see logic and reason (the right) win over irrational emotion (the left)...

 

[danielpalos]

No contradiction. Our Constitution applies in its entirety. You can not justify the general badfare for the general welfare.

And yet you just contradicted it. You said that the federal government has unlimited power under the "general welfare clause". When I pointed out that that means President Trump and the Republicans could immediately execute all lefties (since they really are bad for America and executing them really would be for the "general welfare" of America), you immediately hid behind the "Bill of Rights" and claimed that it protected you from the government.

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Either the government can execute you under the "general welfare clause" or the "general welfare clause" applies to the 18 enumerated powers only (as our founders clearly stated). Which is it danielpalos? You can't have it both ways chief.

We have a Bill of Rights that gives some indication of what was meant, by the general welfare.

So now you're saying the "general welfare clause" doesn't say what you previously claimed it did? How interesting.

Please cite for everyone where the Bill of Righfs mentions (and I quote) "what was meant by the general welfare".

The General welfare is General, not major or specific. Any more questions, dear?

Yeah - the general welfare of their explicit 18 enumerated powers, snowflake.

Only in the Republican Doctrine. I am a federalist; my doctrine has not changed, from Inception, that is how good a job real federalists do.

 

[Papageorgio]

And yet you just contradicted it. You said that the federal government has unlimited power under the "general welfare clause". When I pointed out that that means President Trump and the Republicans could immediately execute all lefties (since they really are bad for America and executing them really would be for the "general welfare" of America), you immediately hid behind the "Bill of Rights" and claimed that it protected you from the government.

You can't have it both ways, snowflake. Either the government can execute you under the "general welfare clause" or the "general welfare clause" applies to the 18 enumerated powers only (as our founders clearly stated). Which is it danielpalos? You can't have it both ways chief.

We have a Bill of Rights that gives some indication of what was meant, by the general welfare.

So now you're saying the "general welfare clause" doesn't say what you previously claimed it did? How interesting.

Please cite for everyone where the Bill of Righfs mentions (and I quote) "what was meant by the general welfare".

The General welfare is General, not major or specific. Any more questions, dear?

Yeah - the general welfare of their explicit 18 enumerated powers, snowflake.

Only in the Republican Doctrine. I am a federalist; my doctrine has not changed, from Inception, that is how good a job real federalists do.

Lol! Not that is funny. Thanks for the laughs!

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Bill of Rights that gives some indication of what was meant, by the general welfare.

So now you're saying the "general welfare clause" doesn't say what you previously claimed it did? How interesting.

Please cite for everyone where the Bill of Righfs mentions (and I quote) "what was meant by the general welfare".

The General welfare is General, not major or specific. Any more questions, dear?

Yeah - the general welfare of their explicit 18 enumerated powers, snowflake.

Only in the Republican Doctrine. I am a federalist; my doctrine has not changed, from Inception, that is how good a job real federalists do.

Lol! Not that is funny. Thanks for the laughs!

I was serious. It is not that our Founding Fathers slacked with our supreme law of the land; it is their Posterity that slacked.