- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
24 Jul 21
@mott-the-hoople saidWho cares about those arrogant, self-centred brood cows and bullocks? Mere cattle, the lot of them.
This guy nails it
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/24/senate-candidate-blasts-childless-left-who-have-no-physical-commitment-to-the-future-of-this-country/
24 Jul 21
@eladar saidTo exercise his mind, be it good , bad or indifferent. For example, he throws the pharase 'general welfare' out there when, in a discussion, it fits his narrative, when in fact, he cannot even define what it means. He THINKS it means that the govt should provide welfare to its citizens, which could not be farther from the truth. How do I know? Because if that is what the founders had intended, don't you think that they would have gone into quite a bit of detail on manifesting such a provision? Paying for it, who gets it, do you have to work if you don't want to, the usual lib mantras of the day?
That is the answer. Constitutional or not, it is what is already being done.
It is little different than the child tax credit.
I do not see why you are making a big deal out of this.
Marauder is a little fast and loose with that phrase. I am sure we will all agree. Welfare? Uhhh, not the welfare you are thinking of, No1.
@averagejoe1 saidYou suck at mind reading, AJ.
To exercise his mind, be it good , bad or indifferent. For example, he throws the pharase 'general welfare' out there when, in a discussion, it fits his narrative, when in fact, he cannot even define what it means. He THINKS it means that the govt should provide welfare to its citizens, which could not be farther from the truth. How do I know? Because if that is what ...[text shortened]... that phrase. I am sure we will all agree. Welfare? Uhhh, not the welfare you are thinking of, No1.
I, like the SCOTUS, believe in Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of the "general welfare" clause:
"Hamilton famously argued that the Clause authorized spending, so long as “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/755
24 Jul 21
General: : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
Welfare: : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
Both definitions from Merriam-Webster online.
So "general welfare" means "good fortune, happiness, well being or prosperity" of the whole People of the US. Taxes may be spent for any purpose which improves that in the opinion of the People's representatives.
25 Jul 21
@no1marauder saidYour interpretation is hogwash. Try taking it to the logical conclusion, please. You know, where it will be resolved that we are all taken care of.
General: : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
Welfare: : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
Both definitions from Merriam-Webster online.
So "general welfare" means "good fortune, happiness, well being or prosperity" of the whole People of the US. Taxes may be spent for any purpose which improves that in the opinion of the People's representatives.
C'mon, do it!!!!!
25 Jul 21
@no1marauder saidSqueeze his words to fit your narrative. You truly think they meant to cover everyone, no matter who, what, where they are!! A chicken in every pot!! Haha
You suck at mind reading, AJ.
I, like the SCOTUS, believe in Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of the "general welfare" clause:
"Hamilton famously argued that the Clause authorized spending, so long as “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Un ...[text shortened]... ot.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/755
@eladar saidNo it doesn't.
Obviously General Well Being means the US needs to be a communist state where everyone can share equally.
Your constant narrative pitting communism against cowboy capitalism only exposes the fact that the real war going on here is in determining the social path forward for the US.
Will the US be a liberal country or a conservative country ?
The constant drivel over the US becoming a communist country is getting tiresome.
Come on, guys.
Why don't your talk about what really matters to you.
Let's talk about Roe v Wade.
Let's talk about same sex marriage.
Let's talk about getting the Lord's prayer back in the classroom.
Hell, let's talk about removing Darwin from our schools.
Tell us what frightens you every day.
I know you want to.
25 Jul 21
@averagejoe1 saidYes, "general" means to cover everybody as Hamilton and the dictionary say.
Squeeze his words to fit your narrative. You truly think they meant to cover everyone, no matter who, what, where they are!! A chicken in every pot!! Haha
What meaning have current day right wingers concocted for it?
25 Jul 21
@eladar saidRespond to the post, not the sentence.
If it brings well being to all people equally, then Communism fits the description.
We get to pick and choose what the general statement means.
You know the US won't go communist under the Democrats.
Not even socialist.
Liberals can be just as free market capitalists as conservatives.
And probably better at it to boot.
25 Jul 21
@mghrn55 saidI do not know that the US will not eventually become communist state. I would say we are well on our way.
Respond to the post, not the sentence.
You know the US won't go communist under the Democrats.
Not even socialist.
Liberals can be just as free market capitalists as conservatives.
And probably better at it to boot.