Isn't is just so nice to realize that leftists are coming for our money and our property? I had so much fun a couple of years back. There was this Ameribitch, I really didn't like this one at all.. she had far leftist bumper stickers, she lied in business deals.. so I reversed the lefty shit, I went to legal aid, gave them $20 and said she owed me some money. She actually wound up paying it, that was the joke, it was just easier for her to pay it... meanwhile I observed that nobody liked her that much and neighbors divulged info about some illegal income she had so I screwed that up for her. I might make this my hobby.. I can think about it and laugh at these posters here that are using the government to come after property and savings and all. I think some of them are just trying to avoid the strong feelings that come with being losers. It's really much more of a personal problem than a social problem. People like me, that make their way in life and play the chips wherever they land with no complaints, we don't much give a shit if you guys are losers, ok? Did mama love little brother more than you and make you feel like a loser? Oh my, the government should give you some money..... no really!
The problem isn't so much for us as those who realistically cannot adjust (ie working middle class and lower).
It's bigger than that, liberals have to make up their own facts because reality just makes them look stupid.
Your support of obama , obamacare and other stupid ass collectivism once again demonstrates your legendary inept discernment or you just don't know what the fuck the words you use mean.
You mean like, include a list? oh right, he DID. I didn't imply it was likely, I asked whether or not it would be Constitutional, it's a simple question. Hamilton did exactly the same thing, his 'interpretation' didn't appear until 1791.. after ratification and the adoption of The Bill of Rights. The glaring, irreconcilable difference between the two, is hamilton is ignoring not only the rest of the same section that contains the the two words - general welfare, but the purpose of Constitution, which was establishing a defined federal government. Can it get any more selective than that? There were others besides hamilton who viewed the general welfare clause as a power to do anything, however when they ratified the document, they agreed to be bound by the rules it contains. In the words of Madison, also from 1791: "No argument could be drawn from the terms "common defence, and general welfare." The power as to these general purposes, was limited to acts laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand these terms in any sense, that would justify the power in question, would give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supercede all the powers reserved to the state governments. These terms are copied from the articles of confederation; had it ever been pretended, that they were to be understood otherwise than as here explained?" You're doing precisely what you are accusing me of. And they can't both be right. Another point, if the words 'general welfare' alone grant the fed govt authority to do whatever they want, then what is the purpose of the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Which clearly states that the fed govt has been granted specific powers not unlimited power to do what they want. And the authority they haven't been given belongs to the States, or the people. i would quote the rest of your posts but they are mostly cut and pasted from the wiki article on Hamilton. So I'll just address hamilton. He proposed at the Convention that elected officials like the President and Senators, serve for life. He didn't get his way on the Constitution, Madison/Jefferson did. Hamilton knew the rules but wasn't satisfied with them, which is why he changed his mind (twisted the meaning) AFTER the Constitution was ratified, and AFTER he was appointed Treasury Secretary by Washington. How do I know, because in Federalist 83 (1788) Hamilton wrote: "The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." This was prior to his 'interpretation' of the words 'general welfare' (in 1791) and is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION. These actions caused him to be viewed as a monarchist sympathizer by Madison. The evidence for Madison's argument logically carries more weight than Hamilton's contradictory belief (which is essentially, the two words 'general welfare', mean whatever I say they do, and trump the rest of the Constitution). Like I said, you're wrong.
+1 BA dude really, you must be a fool or think all the rest of us are to say something like that. You are NOT a fiscal conservative if you support the growth of a govt that is 16T dollars in debt. lol.
Exactly. Believe it or not I recall thunderpussy/Gayfly/Brass Hole making the same fiscal conservative claim. Mr. Big government himself.
Brasshole did do that, one of the worst arguments in P&R history followed.. where he called mao and stalin etc., right wing.