some truth right here

@eladar said
I do not know that the US will not eventually become communist state. I would say we are well on our way.

That is a narrative for the stupid.

But you should clarify.
You say you do not know, yet say the US is well on their way.
What's it going to be ?

@no1marauder said
From your article:

"Vance spoke fondly of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s pro-natal policies, explaining that “they offer loans to newly married couples that are forgiven at some point later if those couples have actually stayed together and had kids.”

“Why can’t we do that here?” Vance asked. “Why can’t we actually promote family formation?”"

Is Vance's proposal unconstitutional IYO?

the govt has many different kinds of giveaway programs. the constitution grants congress this authority. This has nothing to do with married couple/children or education. Why do you ask this question?

@no1marauder said
Yes, "general" means to cover everybody as Hamilton and the dictionary say.

What meaning have current day right wingers concocted for it?

“cover everybody”? Brrr.
Our brothers in Chicago? Losers throwing frisbees in the park?
And cud you define “cover”?
You really crack me up, you and your buddy Karl. Since the same constitution protects my freedom, am i free to opt out of covering what your govt tells me to cover?
I am actually laughing as i type. What do you and the other dependents really want.... Cut to the chase Marauder.
If we all agree to ‘cover’ the 40M destitute, what in the hell else do you want to depend on us for?

@mghrn55 said
That is a narrative for the stupid.

But you should clarify.
You say you do not know, yet say the US is well on their way.
What's it going to be ?

It took about 100 years for people to decide the 14th amendment should be used to create civil rights laws.

So maybe it will take 100 years for people to decide that general welfare means communism.

@averagejoe1 said
“cover everybody”? Brrr.
Our brothers in Chicago? Losers throwing frisbees in the park?
And cud you define “cover”?
You really crack me up, you and your buddy Karl. Since the same constitution protects my freedom, am i free to opt out of covering what your govt tells me to cover?
I am actually laughing as i type. What do you and the other dependent ...[text shortened]... If we all agree to ‘cover’ the 40M destitute, what in the hell else do you want to depend on us for?

Idiots laugh quite often.

Your inability to understand the Constitution is your problem, not mine.

@mott-the-hoople said
the govt has many different kinds of giveaway programs. the constitution grants congress this authority. This has nothing to do with married couple/children or education. Why do you ask this question?

Eldy thinks all federal social programs are unconstitutional, so maybe you should debate him.

Did you even read the article your OP cited to? If not, do so.

@no1marauder said
Idiots laugh quite often.

Your inability to understand the Constitution is your problem, not mine.

I read some opinions, and you know full well that the meaning has alwsys been unsettled, probably the reason you wont tackle it.
But you you know it does NOT mean welfare in today’s vernacular. You know it. Or maybe, as a Marx disciple, maybe you dont. Brrrrr

@averagejoe1 said
I read some opinions, and you know full well that the meaning has alwsys been unsettled, probably the reason you wont tackle it.
But you you know it does NOT mean welfare in today’s vernacular. You know it. Or maybe, as a Marx disciple, maybe you dont. Brrrrr

This is a perfect example of someone answering a question of yours and you pretending they didn't.

I gave my definition of "general welfare" backed by dictionary definitions. That definition is in line with what Alexander Hamilton believed and what has been accepted in numerous decisions of the US Supreme Court.

Were they all "disciples of Marx" ( which you know I am not so why continually lie about it?) , too?

@eladar said
It took about 100 years for people to decide the 14th amendment should be used to create civil rights laws.

So maybe it will take 100 years for people to decide that general welfare means communism.

Ok, so you don't want to get into a debate on the real issue in America - Social Liberalism or Social Conservatism.

You want to stick to your misguided fear that Communism will sweep America !!
In 100 years !! Hilarious !!

Lots can happen in 100 years. Ah, never mind ...... 😛

@no1marauder said
Eldy thinks all federal social programs are unconstitutional, so maybe you should debate him.

Did you even read the article your OP cited to? If not, do so.

actually I dont understand why you are talking about this. You are known to change the subject when losing an argument

@mott-the-hoople said
actually I dont understand why you are talking about this. You are known to change the subject when losing an argument

I'm "changing the subject" by discussing the article you linked to in your OP? 🙄

@mott-the-hoople said
why are liberals always wanting someone else to support them…its mind boggling.

As noted, we have a constitution, dems shred it at every opportunity, such as aca.

So what about article 15 of your constitution.

You right-wingers seem awefully picky when it comes to defending your constitution.

@shavixmir said
So what about article 15 of your constitution.

You right-wingers seem awefully picky when it comes to defending your constitution.

14 and 15 were the amendments that freed slaves in the US.

It took a hundred years for those two amendments to be used for any other purpose.

@eladar said
14 and 15 were the amendments that freed slaves in the US.

It took a hundred years for those two amendments to be used for any other purpose.

Wrong.

Where does the 14th Amendment "free slaves"?

@no1marauder said
Wrong.

Where does the 14th Amendment "free slaves"?

https://civilwarnarrative.weebly.com/13-14--15-amendments.html

Give it a read.