Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 5, 8:27*am, "Steve" wrote:
On *4-Sep-2009, Jack wrote:

The hell it doesn't. *It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". *It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. *You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

The stupidity promoted by them simply shows many people are evolving in
reverse. This is reinforced by their staring at an idiot box and thinking
they are informed.

They've been sold this ideology by it being repeated to them many
times, and then they believe it. Now they think they can do the same
to thinking people, but they cannot.

Congress still denying health care
 

Jack wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:27 am, "Steve" wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, Jack wrote:

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".
While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.
You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.
The stupidity promoted by them simply shows many people are evolving in
reverse. This is reinforced by their staring at an idiot box and thinking
they are informed.

They've been sold this ideology by it being repeated to them many
times, and then they believe it. Now they think they can do the same
to thinking people, but they cannot.



Isn't it great when the right-wing retards get together to reinforce
each other's nonsense? I'm sure herring and justwaitafreak will chime in
here, too.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther
Idiots All

Congress still denying health care
 

In article ,
says...

On 4-Sep-2009, Jack wrote:

The hell it doesn't. *It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". *It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

The stupidity promoted by them simply shows many people are evolving in
reverse. This is reinforced by their staring at an idiot box and thinking
they are informed.

Please do list us where you get your "real" information... New York
Lies? MSNBC/GE/DNC? The Daily Kos? Jay Lenno???

--
Wafa free since 2009

Congress still denying health care
 

On 5-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

clause, n.

(klɔ�z)

Also 4–6 claus, 5 clawse, clausse.

[a. OF. clause, ad. late or med.L. clausa, app. in sense of L. clausula
close of a period or formula, conclusion, clause, dim. of *clausa,
itself not recorded as n. in ancient Latin; f. L. claudĕre, claus-um to
close. Cf. Pr. clauza; It. uses clausula.]

1. a.1.a A short sentence; a single passage or member of a discourse or
writing; a distinct part or member of a sentence, esp. in Gramm.
Analysis, one containing a subject and predicate. Also attrib. and Comb.
clause, n.

* Date: 14th century
Idiot:

1: usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2 : a foolish or stupid person

— idiot adjective

Congress still denying health care
 

On 5-Sep-2009, BAR wrote:

Government lackey or union clown "member?"


Moron.

Meaninig H K cannot rebut your facts.

Facts are extremely frustrating to the misguided and ignorant masses.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 5-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

Meaninig H K cannot rebut your facts.



There's no need to "rebut" morons.

"It's not a 'clause'"

impossible task: 299 million in the U.S. alone. Sand that's very generous.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 5-Sep-2009, thunder wrote:

Seeing the Preamble has "ZERO weight", I guess that's why our Founding
Fathers specifically repeated parts of it when enumerating the Powers of
Congress.

Sec. 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There's that pesky "general Welfare" again.

To pretend to agree with such stupidity, food, then shelter, is more
important than medical service. When your lackeys impose "free" food and
shelter, I'll address keeping the nonproductive masses alive.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 5-Sep-2009, Jack wrote:

The stupidity promoted by them simply shows many people are evolving in
reverse. This is reinforced by their staring at an idiot box and
thinking
they are informed.

They've been sold this ideology by it being repeated to them many
times, and then they believe it. Now they think they can do the same
to thinking people, but they cannot.

They're actually doing a decent job. About 130 million people voted for
Buckwheat or Mr. Magoo. That explains the root of the problem.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 5-Sep-2009, JustWait wrote:

The stupidity promoted by them simply shows many people are evolving in
reverse. This is reinforced by their staring at an idiot box and
thinking
they are informed.

Please do list us where you get your "real" information... New York
Lies? MSNBC/GE/DNC? The Daily Kos? Jay Lenno???

Interesting list of misinformation. Do those itemize your list of sources?
It explains a lot.

How did you get enough money to input text in a news group? Rent-to-own???
Are you at a library?

Congress still denying health care
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...
It's not a "clause," (hahahahaha....idiot) article or amendment. It's in
the
introduction, formally known as the preamble. It carries no weight
whatsoever, even IF you were coherent.

Government lackey or union clown "member?"


You are completely wrong. Here's the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose of
the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful,
they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses with serious
introspection also.


You are completely wrong. Here's the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose of
the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful,
they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses with serious
introspection also.


You are completely wrong. Here's the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.

Congress still denying health care
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of
the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful,
they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses with serious
introspection also.


You are completely wrong. Here's the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.


The first sentence of the Purpose and Effect of the Preamble is as follows.
Yes, it's very clear.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 5, 4:31*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message

...





nom=de=plume wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of
the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful,
they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses with serious
introspection also.

You are completely wrong. Here's the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.

The first sentence of the Purpose and Effect of the Preamble is as follows.
Yes, it's very clear.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 5, 4:31*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message

...





nom=de=plume wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of
the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful,
they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses with serious
introspection also.

You are completely wrong. Here's the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.

The first sentence of the Purpose and Effect of the Preamble is as follows.
Yes, it's very clear.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."


"Although the preamble *is not a source of power* for any department
of the
Federal Government..."

That is very instructive.

Congress still denying health care
 

In article ,
says...

On 5-Sep-2009, JustWait wrote:

The stupidity promoted by them simply shows many people are evolving in
reverse. This is reinforced by their staring at an idiot box and
thinking
they are informed.

Please do list us where you get your "real" information... New York
Lies? MSNBC/GE/DNC? The Daily Kos? Jay Lenno???

Interesting list of misinformation. Do those itemize your list of sources?
It explains a lot.

Please cite which facts I stated were incorrect? Pffftttt...

How did you get enough money to input text in a news group? Rent-to-own???
Are you at a library?

So, we have yet another bumper sticker reader. Sorry, I just had to ask
because every time I hear folks talking about how "informed" they are,
they refuse to answer that one simple question... It's all right though,
we know you can't really tell us as we would all laugh too hard. Thanks
for sparing us...

Add another cowardly desk dweller to the list.... plonk



--
Wafa free since 2009

Congress still denying health care
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.

The first sentence of the Purpose and Effect of the Preamble is as
follows.
Yes, it's very clear.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."


That is very instructive.


Try finishing the sentence... I think it's pretty clear that you're pretty
wrong. Why not admit it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/
For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.
The first sentence of the Purpose and Effect of the Preamble is as
follows.
Yes, it's very clear.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."


That is very instructive.


Try finishing the sentence... I think it's pretty clear that you're pretty
wrong. Why not admit it.


Here is the first sentence in it's entirety. Notice the period at the end.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of
the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as
evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."

Congress still denying health care
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/
For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.
The first sentence of the Purpose and Effect of the Preamble is as
follows.
Yes, it's very clear.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."


That is very instructive.


Try finishing the sentence... I think it's pretty clear that you're pretty
wrong. Why not admit it.


Who elects the national leaders?

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 6, 12:22*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...tion/preamble/

For the purposes of this discussion there is no need to read beyond the
first sentence. It's very clear.

The first sentence of the Purpose and Effect of the Preamble is as
follows.
Yes, it's very clear.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."

That is very instructive.

Try finishing the sentence... I think it's pretty clear that you're pretty
wrong. Why not admit it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Let's re-arrange the sentence. "While some have referred to it as
evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, the preamble is
not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government."

What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Congress still denying health care
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
Here is the first sentence in it's entirety. Notice the period at the end.

"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."


Thus, it has weight and influence on the highest court of the land. Thanks.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of
the
Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as
evidence
of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution."


That is very instructive.


Try finishing the sentence... I think it's pretty clear that you're
pretty wrong. Why not admit it.


Who elects the national leaders?


What's that got to do with the discussion of general welfare? If you're
talking about Bush v. Gore, it would be the Supreme Court.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
That is very instructive.

Try finishing the sentence... I think it's pretty clear that you're pretty
wrong. Why not admit it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Let's re-arrange the sentence. "While some have referred to it as
evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, the
preamble is
not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government."

Let's leave it as the Founders intended.

What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Are you a revisionist constitutionalist? I doubt it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 6, 1:21*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

That is very instructive.

Try finishing the sentence... I think it's pretty clear that you're pretty
wrong. Why not admit it.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Let's re-arrange the sentence. *"While some have referred to it as
evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, the
preamble is
not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government."

Let's leave it as the Founders intended.

Just trying to help you understand, what must be for you, a difficult
sentence. Oh, and the Founders didn't write that sentence... some
lawyer did. Is that the source of your confusion? There's that
mental heavy lifting thing again.


What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Are you a revisionist constitutionalist? I doubt it.

Can you answer a direct question? Apparently not.

You know, you may be right. We can stretch "general welfare" to mean
just about anything. Something that would help *my* general welfare
would be, say, ten million dollars and about twenty acres of prime
real estate on the local lake. The goverment should provide that to
me. Oh, and they should, of course, take it away from my fellow man
to give it to me. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Can you see how silly your whole argument is?

Congress still denying health care
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
Just trying to help you understand, what must be for you, a difficult
sentence. Oh, and the Founders didn't write that sentence... some
lawyer did. Is that the source of your confusion? There's that
mental heavy lifting thing again.

Swing and a miss.

What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Are you a revisionist constitutionalist? I doubt it.

Can you answer a direct question? Apparently not.

Air ball...

Can you see how silly your whole argument is?

Certain can... just like your ignorance of the facts in this case...

I guess the governor of Penn at the Constitutional Congress in 1787 doesn't
count as a Founding Father. Keep swinging, you'll hit something eventually.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jack" wrote in message
...
Just trying to help you understand, what must be for you, a difficult
sentence. Oh, and the Founders didn't write that sentence... some
lawyer did. Is that the source of your confusion? There's that
mental heavy lifting thing again.

Swing and a miss.

What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Are you a revisionist constitutionalist? I doubt it.

Can you answer a direct question? Apparently not.

Air ball...

Can you see how silly your whole argument is?

Certain can... just like your ignorance of the facts in this case...

I guess the governor of Penn at the Constitutional Congress in 1787
doesn't count as a Founding Father. Keep swinging, you'll hit something
eventually.


My bad. His name was Gouverneur Morris. He represented Penn, and he wrote
much of the constitution. I new there was a "governor" in there somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 6, 2:38*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

Just trying to help you understand, what must be for you, a difficult
sentence. *Oh, and the Founders didn't write that sentence... some
lawyer did. *Is that the source of your confusion? *There's that
mental heavy lifting thing again.

Swing and a miss.

What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Are you a revisionist constitutionalist? I doubt it.

Can you answer a direct question? *Apparently not.

Air ball...

Can you see how silly your whole argument is?

Certain can... just like your ignorance of the facts in this case...

I guess the governor of Penn at the Constitutional Congress in 1787 doesn't
count as a Founding Father. Keep swinging, you'll hit something eventually.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Are you thinking the sentence: "Although the preamble is not a source
of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme
Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and
purpose of the Constitution." was written by a founding father, Gouv
Morris? You seem to be indicating that. Want to share your source?

Besides, every source is unanimous in one thing... that the preamble
DOES NOT grant any powers to the government, that it only serves to
introduce the Constitution. If you're still trying to maintain that
the preamble itself, or the annotation from Findlaw above, grants
power to the president and congress to enact some legislation, you're
just... wrong.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 6, 3:16*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 6, 2:38*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...

Just trying to help you understand, what must be for you, a difficult
sentence. *Oh, and the Founders didn't write that sentence... some
lawyer did. *Is that the source of your confusion? *There's that
mental heavy lifting thing again.

Swing and a miss.

What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Are you a revisionist constitutionalist? I doubt it.

Can you answer a direct question? *Apparently not.

Air ball...

Can you see how silly your whole argument is?

Certain can... just like your ignorance of the facts in this case...

I guess the governor of Penn at the Constitutional Congress in 1787 doesn't
count as a Founding Father. Keep swinging, you'll hit something eventually.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Are you thinking the sentence: "Although the preamble is not a source
of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme
Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and
purpose of the Constitution." was written by a founding father, Gouv
Morris? *You seem to be indicating that. *Want to share your source?

Besides, every source is unanimous in one thing... that the preamble
DOES NOT grant any powers to the government, that it only serves to
introduce the Constitution. *If you're still trying to maintain that
the preamble itself, or the annotation from Findlaw above, grants
power to the president and congress to enact some legislation, you're
just... wrong.

Heh, heh... crickets. I'm not surprised.

Congress still denying health care
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
I guess the governor of Penn at the Constitutional Congress in 1787
doesn't
count as a Founding Father. Keep swinging, you'll hit something
eventually.


Gouverneur Morris, look it up. Get back to us when you're willing to admit
your mistake.

--
Nom=de=Plume