The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[danielpalos]

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

You have declared many dozens of times right here on USMB that the “General Welfare” clause grants the federal government unlimited power so long as they deem their actions to be “in the general welfare”. Well snowflake, our elected leaders have decided that it is most definitely in the general welfare to build a wall, engage in general warfare, and go on the common offense.

You can’t have it both ways, ignorant little fragile snowflake. You can’t insist that the general welfare clause grants broad, unlimited powers and then simultaneously declare that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant the actions you whine about.

we have to quibble for due diligence purposes.

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause or a general defense clause.

why resort to implied powers when express powers cover all contingencies.

Because they don't.

express powers have precedence over any implied powers.

 

[hadit]

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

You have declared many dozens of times right here on USMB that the “General Welfare” clause grants the federal government unlimited power so long as they deem their actions to be “in the general welfare”. Well snowflake, our elected leaders have decided that it is most definitely in the general welfare to build a wall, engage in general warfare, and go on the common offense.

You can’t have it both ways, ignorant little fragile snowflake. You can’t insist that the general welfare clause grants broad, unlimited powers and then simultaneously declare that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant the actions you whine about.

we have to quibble for due diligence purposes.

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause or a general defense clause.

why resort to implied powers when express powers cover all contingencies.

Because they don't.

express powers have precedence over any implied powers.

And they're limited as well.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

You have declared many dozens of times right here on USMB that the “General Welfare” clause grants the federal government unlimited power so long as they deem their actions to be “in the general welfare”. Well snowflake, our elected leaders have decided that it is most definitely in the general welfare to build a wall, engage in general warfare, and go on the common offense.

You can’t have it both ways, ignorant little fragile snowflake. You can’t insist that the general welfare clause grants broad, unlimited powers and then simultaneously declare that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant the actions you whine about.

we have to quibble for due diligence purposes.

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause or a general defense clause.

why resort to implied powers when express powers cover all contingencies.

Because they don't.

express powers have precedence over any implied powers.

And they're limited as well.

implied powers must be more limited than express powers.

 

[regent]

Just looks who wants to reduce First Amendment, and Second Amendment rights or remove them all together. DEMOCRATS. They want to call speech they don't like Hate Speech and ban it, then went to ban and confiscate legally owned guns. Just that alone should tell you they are fascists.

The first threat to the Bill of Rights was our second president, conservative John Adams. The conservatives did not like to be criticized by the liberal press so they passed a law, the Sedition Act, that made it against the law for newspapers to criticize conservatives. Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped. In addition, It was the liberals that insisted the Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

why resort to implied powers when express powers cover all contingencies.

Exactly!!! Why do you keep resorting to the “General Welfare” clause claiming it has “implied powers” that it doesn’t have when the U.S. Constitution clearly defines explicit powers for all “contingencies”?!?

Game Over. You just admitted that the “General Welfare” clause does not mean what you’ve tried to convince people it means!

 

[P@triot]

The first threat to the Bill of Rights was our second president, conservative John Adams. The conservatives did not like to be criticized by the liberal press so they passed a law, the Sedition Act, that made it against the law for newspapers to criticize conservatives. Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped. In addition, It was the liberals that insisted the Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.

Hahahahahaha! Man alive is regent committed to left-wing propaganda like nobody I have ever come across. She just completely swapped the truth again.

John Adams was in fact the liberal. And Thomas Jefferson was in fact the ultimate small government conservative. Jefferson even vehemently opposed the U.S. Constitution because it expanded the power of the federal government. He wanted to remain under the Articles of Confederation. Does that sound like a “liberal” to you?

 

[P@triot]

Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped.

Does this sound like a “liberal” to you?

 

[P@triot]

Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped.

Does this sound like a “liberal” to you?

 

[P@triot]

Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped.

Does this sound like a “liberal” to you?

 

[danielpalos]

why resort to implied powers when express powers cover all contingencies.

Exactly!!! Why do you keep resorting to the “General Welfare” clause claiming it has “implied powers” that it doesn’t have when the U.S. Constitution clearly defines explicit powers for all “contingencies”?!?

Game Over. You just admitted that the “General Welfare” clause does not mean what you’ve tried to convince people it means!

our welfare clause is Expressly declared General and must cover any contingency.

 

[P@triot]

our welfare clause is Expressly declared General and must cover any contingency.

So then it “covers” their power to wage war on crime, terrorism, and drugs! Once again you defeated your own argument.

 

[P@triot]

Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped.

Does this sound like a “liberal” to you?

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that “all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people” [XIIth. Amendmt.]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless feild of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[RealDave]

The left has always been fascist in nature (obviously - since fascism is a form of government oppression). But in the past few years, the left has made a rapid march towards extreme fascism.

They engage in massive speech control campaigns. If Donald Trump attempts to hold a political rally - they riot (costing a fortune in damage to public and private property). If someone attempts to merely attend a Donald Trump political rally, the left engages in violent assaults. Fascism.

They engage in massive thought control campaigns. If someone wishes to avoid homosexual acts or homosexual celebrations (whether it be for religious reasons, comfort reasons, or just plain old hate), the left attempts to turn that into a crime and advocates for the government to place a gun to the head of those individuals and force them to take part in the homosexual activities. And of course - they've advocated for and manufactured the comical "hate crime" fallacy. Fascism.

This story here is a remarkable indication of the left's embrace of extreme fascism. It revolves around the "Soldiers of Odin". A group rightfully concerned with radical islam. And yet despite being peaceful while liberals engage in violent assaults, the left wants to label these individuals as a "hate" group. So what happened when this group deployed members to a mosque in Denver? Did they brutally attack and bloody muslims like liberals do? Nope. Quite the contrary - the imam of the mosque invited the group in to sit down and talk. They had a peaceful and cordial interaction?

This "incident" is literally the shining example of America at its finest. Concerned citizens form a group of their own free will. The muslims not only continue to engage in their right to religious freedom - but they invite the concerned group into their mosque to see for themselves and to engage in dialect. Everything America was built on and intended to be. And yet the left is angry about this - desperate to falsely label the group a "hate" group and to eliminate them.

A Growing Vigilante Group Is Targeting U.S. Mosques

Bullcrap. You are duped by trump every day.

Trump says he knows more about ISIS than the general (a totally ridiculous statement) and you believed him.

 

[P@triot]

Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped.

Does this sound like a “liberal” to you?

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." - Thomas Jefferson (September 6, 1824)

 

[P@triot]

Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped.

Does this sound like a “liberal” to you?

"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning-knife; and I doubt not it will be employed" - Thomas Jefferson (March 9, 1821)

 

[P@triot]

Our next president liberal Jefferson quickly had the law dropped.

Does this sound like a “liberal” to you?

"A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the best species of exercise, I advise the gun. It gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks" - Thomas Jefferson (August 19, 1785)

Carry a firearm with you at all times, do ya regent?

 

[danielpalos]

our welfare clause is Expressly declared General and must cover any contingency.

So then it “covers” their power to wage war on crime, terrorism, and drugs! Once again you defeated your own argument.

Only the right wing believes that.

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause nor a general defense clause.

We should be promoting the general welfare at the expense of Any implied powers for the general warfare, general defense, or even common offense.

 

[P@triot]

It was the liberals that insisted the Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.

Again...pure propaganda. It was the first and most devout liberal - Alexander Hamilton - who argued ardently against the Bill of Rights. Here he is in Federalist No. 84

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall”

And even though Alexander Hamilton was a horrible piece of shit liberal who was almost universally despised by his fellow founders, I believe in giving credit where credit was due. Hamilton has tremendous foresight on this particular issue and turned out to be 100% correct. Those today who are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution ajd history (ie liberals) believe that our rights are limited to the Bill of Rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[P@triot]

In addition, It was the liberals that insisted the Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.

Unfortunately for you, you live in an era where everything is well documented and your propaganda can be debunked instantly.

 

[P@triot]

Trump says he knows more about ISIS than the general (a totally ridiculous statement) and you believed him.

Really, Real DICK? Please show us where I said I believed him on that or admit you're still lying in every post.