Getin the ring
Verified User
evince doesn't want to PURSUE happiness just have it provided by someone else's money.
She lives in a trailor park, where opinions are Budweiser induced
evince doesn't want to PURSUE happiness just have it provided by someone else's money.
good point
domer uses the general welfare argument to support government social welfare programs where one group is forced to support freeloaders demanding something constantly is given to them.
and that's not going to change with liberals, the very meaning of the word liberal has come to mean act passionate for the feel good fix, and the votes of course
General welfare deos not equal social freeloading no matter how much you demand the government do for you what you won't do for yourself.
domer uses the general welfare argument to support government social welfare programs where one group is forced to support freeloaders demanding something constantly is given to them.
Nope, it sure does not. But only an idiot as yourself would equate "General Welfare" with Welfare
Wrong, idiot. Again. Always.
I have always found it morally untenable that conservatives, teabaggers, and trumptards would rather spend taxpayer money on a three trillion dollar war on Iraq, and on a bloated, inefficient, and unnecessarily large military-welfare state, than spend money on healthcare that actually benefits the American people.
Heard at a Teabagger rally: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
I have always found it morally untenable that conservatives, teabaggers, and trumptards would rather spend taxpayer money on a three trillion dollar war on Iraq, and on a bloated, inefficient, and unnecessarily large military-welfare state, than spend money on healthcare that actually benefits the American people.
Heard at a Teabagger rally: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
I have always found it morally untenable that conservatives, teabaggers, and trumptards would rather spend taxpayer money on a three trillion dollar war on Iraq
so where do we stop, should we feed everybody too, buy them houses, how about immigration, should we send a boat over and pick up people off of the coast of Northern Africa, bring them over and feed, clothe, provide healthcare for them too?
Just because there is a limit to what we should do for humanity, for our own even does not make us less compassionate than you, just makes us smarter in that we realize fiscal limitations
so feel free to take a few in under your family health plan, adopt them or whatever, but excuse us while we dial back 20 trillion dollars in debt
I have always found it morally untenable that conservatives, teabaggers, and trumptards would rather spend taxpayer money on a three trillion dollar war on Iraq, and on a bloated, inefficient, and unnecessarily large military-welfare state, than spend money on healthcare that actually benefits the American people.
Heard at a Teabagger rally: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
I'm not. You are. The general welfare argument is the one you use to defend the social welfare programs not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
If you go by what domer states the general welfare clause can do, it's exactly what he believes.
^Incredibly stupid fuck
Where does the Constitution say the government should offer health insurance?
If you can't (or won't) buy or pay for your own, tough.
The republic got along fine without government-mandated health insurance from its' inception until Obamacare was voted in at midnight by the DemocRats.