thunder wrote:
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?

General does not mean individual. One of the primary principals of the
US used to be (until obama) that the individual was free to do what he
what he wanted, as long as it did not infringe upon his fellow citizen.
Health insurance is an individual choice.

On 5-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

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.

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.

Steve wrote:
On 5-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

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.

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.


Wow...dumb little Stevie got himself a right wing crib sheet. How clever.

Now all the "imbicile" (sic) needs is a dickshunairy.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:31:36 +0000, Steve wrote:


Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

The Preamble is a "cute phrase"? Interesting.

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.

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.

"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

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.
I agree! That was a silly argument to begin with.

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.

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.

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

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.