Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 133 of 133

Thread: Woman Prays For Her Life As Trump Protestors Destroy Her Car

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    The Welfare State is perfectly constitutional.
    Nope. The so-called General Welfare Clause is only declaratory of the reasons for taxation, and is not a blank check grant of power to Congress. Read that clause again, and diagram the sentence in your mind.
    You may also note that all powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 have their own clause. No clause grants more than one power at a time, and most certainly not such a wide range of powers in one clause as a General Welfare reading of that section would require.
    Last edited by fedupinmo; 04-30-2016 at 06:31 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Here's a pretty good summary of the original intent of the General Welfare Clause:

    The Myth

    The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.

    The Truth

    The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.

    This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.

    The Facts

    This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.

    This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.

    Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.

    From the period well before the writing of the constitution up until the 1930s general welfare as used in the constitution was defined as the overall state of wellbeing of the nation as a whole.

    Handing out money to individuals the government has labeled as in need is the modern definition of the word welfare. It wasn’t until the new deal under FDR that the US government began using the justification that the general welfare clause authorizes the US Government to spend money this way.
    More here:
    https://constitutionmythbuster.com/2...e-really-mean/
    There is no spoon.

  4. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    Nope. The so-called General Welfare Clause is only declaratory of the reasons for taxation, and is not a blank check grant of power to Congress. Read that clause again, and diagram the sentence in your mind.
    You may also note that all powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 have their own clause. No clause grants more than one power at a time, and most certainly not such a wide range of powers in one clause as a General Welfare reading of that section would require.
    We know what the supposed intent is, as I made quite clear. Problem is that it's a poorly written clause which the cunning politi$#@! can and has many times driven a semi through.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Here's a pretty good summary of the original intent of the General Welfare Clause:



    More here:
    https://constitutionmythbuster.com/2...e-really-mean/
    Intent=/=practice. Another reason Constitutionalism isn't and can't be "good" from a truly libertarian/"liberty" POV.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Intent=/=practice. Another reason Constitutionalism isn't and can't be "good" from a truly libertarian/"liberty" POV.
    The only way it works is with a population willing to enforce it. Government won't limit itself, just because of some words on a paper somewhere.
    If you actually stick with it, it becomes a powerful tool for liberty.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Intent=/=practice. Another reason Constitutionalism isn't and can't be "good" from a truly libertarian/"liberty" POV.
    It's actually excellent, but as our Founders warned us, it required a vigilant and educated populace.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Intent=/=practice. Another reason Constitutionalism isn't and can't be "good" from a truly libertarian/"liberty" POV.
    You are correct.

    The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to create a large central government- work quite well.
    There is no spoon.

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Exactly.

    I don't know any harder workers, as a group, than Mexicans.

    And the way to solve financial problems with "illegals" is simply to take away entitlements- the Ron Paul way.
    The way not to solve it is to legalize 14 million people who came here specifically to get the benefits they're "entitled" to.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    The way not to solve it is to legalize 14 million people who came here specifically to get the benefits they're "entitled" to.
    Actually we should cut all "entitlements".

    From the US Constitution Forum
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...41#post6207341

    If one simply compares what the Constitution authorizes the government to do with what it currently does, it is obvious that the government hardly follows its own Constitution at all. For if the government did follow its own Constitution—


    There would be no Social Security.
    There would be no food stamps.
    There would be no Medicare.
    There would be no Medicaid.
    There would be no Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    There would be no student loans.
    There would be no Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
    There would be no Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
    There would be no AMTRAK.
    There would be no Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
    There would be no Department of Agriculture.
    There would be no Head Start.
    There would be no federal prohibition on organ sales.
    There would be no National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
    There would be no National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
    There would be no Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
    There would be no Pell Grants.
    There would be no refugee assistance programs.
    There would be no block grants to the states.
    There would be no Department of Health and Human Services.
    There would be no federal job training programs.
    There would be no federal family planning programs.
    There would be no Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
    There would be no Small Business Administration (SBA).
    There would be no AmeriCorps.
    There would be no National Flood Insurance program.
    There would be no Department of Labor.
    There would be no federal war on drugs.
    There would be no Federal Housing Administration (FHA).
    There would be no National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
    There would be no farm subsidies.
    There would be no school breakfast programs.
    There would be no U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
    There would be no federal anti-discrimination laws.
    There would be no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    There would be no Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
    There would be no Export-Import Bank.
    There would be no Minority Business Development Agency.
    There would be no Department of Education.
    There would be no federal adoption assistance programs.
    There would be no refundable tax credits.
    There would be no Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
    There would be no Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC).
    There would be no Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
    There would be no Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.
    There would be no Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
    There would be no Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    There would be no Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).
    Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).
    There would be no Department of Energy.
    We would all be better off, no matter how many immigrants there were.
    There is no spoon.

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Uh, no. They need to take that up with the state and not innocent people.
    The bulk of the "they" this thread keeps talking about, are innocent people (depending on how seriously you view their transgressions or their parents' transgressions in crossing the border). I would say both sides need to take it up with the State, but the State isn't likely to listen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I missed the part where these are illegal aliens. Link?
    It's an assumption, and I believe it's a misplaced one. There seems to be an overpowering desire to paint illegals as a bunch of morons, yet those same people accuse these "ignorant savages" of gaming the system and evading capture. You don't do that by mixing in with large crowds of protestors where arrests may happen (whether through your fault or not) and your life may be disrupted at the very least.

    That said, there's a large contingent of people who feel like they're getting screwed in this country. A subset of that is always going to include "minority youth," who tend to show up at the violent sort of protests in higher proportions.

    I think it's a matter of the forums mixing up "illegal immigrants" and "Hispanics" again, something they have in common with far too many people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Recent immigrants generally don't behave that way. Most likely entitled American leftists with delusions of reconquista.
    Or a number of them are paid to disrupt and instigate. Or a mixture of all of it. La Raza is not your average latino/a any moreso than the Black Panthers were your average black person, or the KKK is/was your average white person. There are groups who would disappear if anything even approaching peace was reached. They have a huge interest in keeping the ignorant and loud at the forefront.

    * * *

    The funny thing is, I don't think some of you have paid attention to what the objection (re: racists, etc.) really is with Trump. I don't think Trump is going to get into office and do away with rights for legal Hispanics, or even succeed in deporting the bulk of illegals. I also don't think this wall thing is going to work out so well, given the sheer number of tunnels already spanning the border, and the porous nature of the border over water and via islands. What I do know is that people are using the concept of President Trump to "tell it like it is" and be nasty racists themselves. That's fine and dandy until they start acting on that ignorance, and things become less than safe. Things that weren't spoken a few years ago are now said publicly and proudly. It's not cute.

    I can predict the replies to that: well take it up with the illegals! They're ruining it for everyone! Oh and LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH!

    I would go back to Suz's comment and tell you to take it up with the State (for all the good it will do you) and add a heaping dose of "leave the innocent out of this."

    If, you know, you care to tell the difference.
    Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.

  13. #131
    Deportation of the invaders obviously isn't working. The U.S. needs to purchase a remote island and send the invaders to it. Give them basic carpentry tools, gardening tools, seeds, and establish a population of hogs on the island for them to feed on.

    The American invasion would be over inside of 5 years.

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
    Deportation of the invaders obviously isn't working. The U.S. needs to purchase a remote island and send the invaders to it. Give them basic carpentry tools, gardening tools, seeds, and establish a population of hogs on the island for them to feed on.

    The American invasion would be over inside of 5 years.
    Of course! Why didn't I think of that!!!??? Brilliant!!
    "The Patriarch"

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    The bulk of the "they" this thread keeps talking about, are innocent people (depending on how seriously you view their transgressions or their parents' transgressions in crossing the border). I would say both sides need to take it up with the State, but the State isn't likely to listen.



    It's an assumption, and I believe it's a misplaced one. There seems to be an overpowering desire to paint illegals as a bunch of morons, yet those same people accuse these "ignorant savages" of gaming the system and evading capture. You don't do that by mixing in with large crowds of protestors where arrests may happen (whether through your fault or not) and your life may be disrupted at the very least.

    That said, there's a large contingent of people who feel like they're getting screwed in this country. A subset of that is always going to include "minority youth," who tend to show up at the violent sort of protests in higher proportions.

    I think it's a matter of the forums mixing up "illegal immigrants" and "Hispanics" again, something they have in common with far too many people.



    Or a number of them are paid to disrupt and instigate. Or a mixture of all of it. La Raza is not your average latino/a any moreso than the Black Panthers were your average black person, or the KKK is/was your average white person. There are groups who would disappear if anything even approaching peace was reached. They have a huge interest in keeping the ignorant and loud at the forefront.

    * * *

    The funny thing is, I don't think some of you have paid attention to what the objection (re: racists, etc.) really is with Trump. I don't think Trump is going to get into office and do away with rights for legal Hispanics, or even succeed in deporting the bulk of illegals. I also don't think this wall thing is going to work out so well, given the sheer number of tunnels already spanning the border, and the porous nature of the border over water and via islands. What I do know is that people are using the concept of President Trump to "tell it like it is" and be nasty racists themselves. That's fine and dandy until they start acting on that ignorance, and things become less than safe. Things that weren't spoken a few years ago are now said publicly and proudly. It's not cute.

    I can predict the replies to that: well take it up with the illegals! They're ruining it for everyone! Oh and LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH!

    I would go back to Suz's comment and tell you to take it up with the State (for all the good it will do you) and add a heaping dose of "leave the innocent out of this."

    If, you know, you care to tell the difference.
    Well said and

    On.The.Nose.

    Thanks!
    There is no spoon.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •