On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

Agreed, though that hasn't stopped it from doing a lot of crap.

Agreed. Are you willing to flush the toilet? Literally?

On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."


Sure it does, ****-for-brains. The "tenthers" are just as crazy as the
birthers, teabaggers, and deathers.


As written by Henry Porter and recently reprinted in KOS:

Time to up the Thorazine dosage.

On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the

common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".


Steve and others think that phrase means "...promote the general welfare
of the rich at the expense of the middle and lower income classes..."

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.

On 4-Sep-2009, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

I wish these people that think that the government should provide health
care would show me the section in the US Constitution or the amendments
that says that is a responsibility of the Federal government to provide
that health care.

Or Asian auto discounts, or federal "education" etc. etc. etc.

Flush the toilette NOW, not in the enxt election.

Damm good time to split the country into several segments. The states have
NO purpose any longer except to be sub level asset collection divisions of
individuals' productivity so some scum can get elected.

The "gimmee everything for free" crowd needs to read some Solzhenitsyn, but
then if they could read, they wouldn't be so completely stupid.

Ohhhhhh ... forgot, they went to gubment skoolz..

Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the

common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".

Steve and others think that phrase means "...promote the general welfare
of the rich at the expense of the middle and lower income classes..."

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.


Sorry, Steve-o, but your interpretation of that clause is entirely
wrong. You're just "to" stupid.

On Sep 4, 11:13*am, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:
Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

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.

Jack wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:13 am, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:
Congress has no authority to grant "health care."
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.


"...promote the general welfare..." means Congress may initiate and pass
legislation that is in the general best interests of the nation.

That would include Social Security, Medicare, a public health plan, et
cetera.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:


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

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, 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.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

So why not lobby for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the
issue? Barring that, sue for the elimination of the air force.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:50:18 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, 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.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we
have an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

So why not lobby for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the
issue? Barring that, sue for the elimination of the air force.

Because denying an Air Force provides for the common defence, is as silly
as saying health care doesn't promote the general Welfare.