Some left-wing fun!

[Ferus]

I got into another argument on facebook with the fascist communist leftie psychos. I took off everyone's last name (handy dandy paranoia!) By the way, I apologize for my failed debate etiquette but I was rather pissed off. I hate getting called stupid. Here you go, have fun! (for the record, "William" is me)



S. Jon
Wake up and smell the cancer, America!
^^Which is a pre-existing condition, by the way.

William
The cancer isn't a pre-existing condition, by the way.
about an hour ago

Jack
Right, but the acne that you didn't report, and we have resolved caused your cancer, is! ::pushed ominous "DROP COVERAGE" button:: Good luck!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/12/765604/-Im-worried-about-the-death-panels...seriously
Relevant: 4, 8, and 9.

Steve
stupid seems to be their preexisting condition

William
"::pushed ominous "DROP COVERAGE" button::"
I've already seen this.

Steve
stupid seems to be your preexisting condition too chiefo

William
Your pre-existing condition seems to be either that you don't care about the Constitution or that you've never read it (or both), "chiefo".

Steve
that's a poor argument do better

William
A poor argument? I think mine was a little better than "you're stupid".

Steve
but u are

William
How am I stupid?

Steve
u use biggo strawman argument 'READ THE CONSTITUTION IT SAYS HERE IN ARTIKEL EINS SEKTION FÜNF THOU SHALT NOT CREATE OBAMAKARE'

William
Actually, it's Article I Section 8 and Amendment 10, but I don't see how that makes me stupid.
The Founding documents and ideas of our nation are a "biggo strawman argument"? If you can't argue against something, it usually means that YOU are the stupid one, not me.
Oh, and: "u use biggo strawman argument 'READ THE CONSTITUTION IT SAYS HERE IN ARTIKEL EINS SEKTION FÜNF THOU SHALT NOT CREATE OBAMAKARE'"
Good spelling and grammar. You do your movement proud with your high level of intelligence.

Steve
realtalk: article 1 section 8 has never been interpreted in a manner where the powers of congress are expressly limited to those contained therein. you might've missed this bit too "The Congress shall have power... to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States!!!" in the same section that means congress can create ... Read Morewelfare programs as it pleases!!!!

as for the 10th amendment its pure garbage people have rights not states

in conclusion you're a spiteful little man who should reconsider his political positions

William
Never been interpreted in that manner? Oh, you mean ALWAYS interpreted in that manner. If that's what you meant, then you're right.
If Congress could do anything, why give them Powers? It implies that the listed Powers are the only Powers they have. In fact, that's exactly what Amendment 10 says.
The Power to create welfare programs as it pleases? ... Read MoreUm... Doesn't say that. Pretty sure I don't see "create public insurance company" or "set rules for health insurance companies."
States don't have rights? Oh, ok. So... the United States don't have the right to create health insurance plans.. Gotcha.

Steve
No i mean never been interpreted in that manner did i repeat myself little man!!!

Congress literally does whatever it wants via the Interstate KKKommerce Claus and in conjunction with the general welfare bit of article 8 its used to tag team ham fisted MORANS like you.

in conclusion u mad

William
I know what you meant. I was saying in an indirect manner that you were wrong. Maybe you were too "stupid" to understand it.
Well I know they do things un-Constitutionally, they have been for a long time. You don't have to remind me that they abuse the Constitution. And if you misspell moron... that really says a lot about your intelligence
After every comment you jump to a different illogical conclusion. It's somewhat amusing, actually.
And by the way, I can already tell that you'll grow up to be a scum bag and possibly a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers. Good luck!

Steve
looks like you've given up on arguing with me and are trying to "troll" me with that crude ad hominem attack on the internet! i will have you know that I will not be trolled sir!! I can safely declare that this argument is over and i am the undisputed victor!!!

William
I was committed to ending the conversation after my last comment, but I will say...
What you just said was just hilarious.
OH NO, I'VE BECOME AD HOMINEM!
Oh wait, you were calling me stupid before the debate even started...
hahahahahaha...

[Ferus]

Questions, comments?

[Jeremy]

if it was on yer profile id back you up

[Ferus]

It's over anyway. It was just funny... the man has no intelligence or skills in the English language...

[JoshLowry]

MORANS comes from this photo:

http://imgur.com/wRb3e.jpg
(http://imgur.com/wRb3e.jpg)

[Charlie41]

That conversation is almost identical to every Democrat "debating" that I have been involved in or seen.

They sound like a 5 year old in trouble, and their only recourse is to lie (repeating the media), call you names, or run. :rolleyes:

[Ferus]

Ah.

[Ferus]

Indeed, Sir Charlie.

[Chieftain1776]

Next time throw James Madison "Father of the Constitution" and Thomas Jefferson at them (http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/constitution.html):

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison laid out what he saw as constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper Number 45 where he explained, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Thomas Jefferson:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

But hey these guys don't know anything about the Constitution :rolleyes:

And if they bring up the Supreme Court throw some more Madison and Jefferson at them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition):


That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

[Freedom 4 all]

That's hillarious. Is it just me or did Steve's entire argument consist of calling you stupid? He doesn't seem to have mentioned any actual arguments for Obamacare at all. Also since when is the constitution a freaking strawman? Does he even know what a strawman is?

[Ferus]

Yes, I am pretty sure that was his entire argument.

[Ferus]

Chieftain, I might have used those quotes but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't understand them, and plus he wasn't worth my time.

[Chieftain1776]

Chieftain, I might have used those quotes but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't understand them, and plus he wasn't worth my time.

Yeah, he was just trolling, but they're around if you need them for future reference. Also if they bring up Hamilton show them how he was a rank hypocrite and shared the same view of Madison and Jefferson in Federalist no 84. Even going so far as to say a bill of rights wasn't necessary. We now know it's b.s. and if we didn't have a Bill of Rights the federal government would be even more powerful just like Hamilton really wanted but couldn't sell to the public.

Federalist no 84: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84)




"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government..


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."