Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is not what I said. Care to LIE some more about what I said? It's there for all to see. Further I give a damn if you put a smiley by it, don't LIE about what I say.
English could be your friend, but then again that requires effort.
I showed you what Bent said. He said he does not see the word "provide", and you said "Bent was right". Yes, your words are there for all to see.
You are trying to defend a claim which is false. You are trying to spin his argument as if it's about something else, but his words are what they are. He says he cannot see the word.
Do you see the word, or do you stick to your claim that Bent is right?
English could be your friend, but then again that requires effort.
The claim:
Quote:
As we read through the Constitution...... I never see the word "provide", or any vague suggestion.
I have not offered any interpretation, I only offered the words in the Constitution itself.
The claim, which you are trying to defend, is that the word "provide" does not appear in the constitution, and that the Constitution.
You have been shown the word it there, so the claim is false/fake.
You can pretend the word is not there, or that is it there but means something completely different, or that it does not mean anything, but you are only making yourself look foolish.
The word is there.
Context is your problem. Lets look at his original post shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
I see the word "promote".
I do not see the word "provide" and no references that can be remotely interpreted as "provide"
So, how does the federal government come to provide so much for so many, without authorization?
He sees "promote", but he does not see the word "provide" or any references that can be interpreted as such. He is obviously talking about the general welfare clause.
So what do you do? You ignore the context (he is implying the general welfare clause) and then quote us the "provide" which is specifically for that of the "common defense" and can not be used to imply provide for the general welfare portion as it is CLEARLY identified by saying PROMOTE.
So, you have deviously inferred his argument, and then inserted your own straw man and then unethically continued this claim to even now.
So, either your ability to read is severely below the requirements to understand the basics, or you are purposefully misinterpreting both his argument and the constitution in order to promote your lies.
That is the problem with a lot of people. They only see or hear things they agree with. Tunnel vision at its worst.
The SCOTUS is the final interpretation of constitutional matters. Agree or disagree that is what our Republic is about.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say "provide" as it concerns the general welfare. It is only tasked with the duty or "providing" for the common defense, not providing for the general welfare which is the violation that the federal government has made in its many departments that tax and fine for such purpose.
As for SCOTUS, they are not kings, they are not the final say and in fact, congress can impeach any one of them for failing to properly meet their duties of the Constitution.
Last edited by CaseyB; 02-27-2017 at 07:07 AM..
Reason: Rude
No, in fact it is clearly established by the founders own words, you know.. something that SCOTUS and the rest of our corrupt government ignores as they play circle jerk with case precedence law?
the bottom line is, the authors of the constitution did not want our country to become a gigantic welfare state as the left seems to think. This is why you hear, particularly from the left that the constitution is a "living" document and is open to interpretation to suit the times.
No, in fact it is clearly established by the founders own words, you know.. something that SCOTUS and the rest of our corrupt government ignores as they play circle jerk with case precedence law?
Context is your problem. Lets look at his original post shall we?
He sees "promote", but he does not see the word "provide" or any references that can be interpreted as such.
I see them both. I am sorry you cannot.
Its cute of you attempt to create a context for him, when he failed to do so himself.
His claim in the thread title is painfully clear, and impossible to defend.
Quote:
So, either your ability to read is severely below the requirements to understand the basics, or you are purposefully misinterpreting both his argument and the constitution in order to promote your lies.
What lies are you referring to
My reading skills is the problem here but yours, and your desire to edit the constitution in order to win a petty argument.
Sadly sounds like personal attacks are the only thing left in your arsenal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
