Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Here's my safety Sir
Joined
·
14,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
  • Like
Reactions: mongoose

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Damn --- need ta read that thing again -- I missed that part
 

·
Here's my safety Sir
Joined
·
14,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
  • Like
Reactions: Haffenreffer

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,244 Posts
Just read it again yesterday and I didn't read anything about health insurance, though I am a bit rusty on my colonial English.

I did read it in a letter from Washington to Congress though. Something about using permanent health care for troops as a recruiting idea.

Reading 1776 the illistrated version. Picked it up from Ollies for $15. It's a great read.
 

·
I drink your milkshake!
Joined
·
1,850 Posts

·
Destroyer of Ignorance
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Well, one of her Democrat peers (think it was Harry Reid) said a few weeks ago that the general welfare clause gave them that power. Me thinks somebody needs to learn how to read better. These people totally make $hit up as they go along and get annoyed when somebody else notices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,090 Posts
"Promote the general welfare" clause in no way,shape or form has ever meant forcing citizens to buy health insurance,nor was it ever intended to be construed to allow the govt. to give health insurance to the indigent.Nowhere in the country's 200+year history do you find this mis-interpertation,except for right here,right now.They are making things up as they go.That makes them unfit for office,and nullifies their terms in office.
 

·
Back of beyond!
Joined
·
2,575 Posts
"Promote the general welfare" clause in no way,shape or form has ever meant forcing citizens to buy health insurance,nor was it ever intended to be construed to allow the govt. to give health insurance to the indigent.Nowhere in the country's 200+year history do you find this mis-interpertation,except for right here,right now.They are making things up as they go.That makes them unfit for office,and nullifies their terms in office.
Good point Fred! I guess they take "the general welfare" to mean we should be dependent on WELFARE, and that big brother knows what's best for ALL of us, whether we like it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
Fred, you're right on track.

"Promote the general welfare" and "PROVIDE the general welfare" are two different things that liberals either haven't figured out or, just hope everyone else is too stupid to figure it out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,927 Posts
They want to roll this way,I suggest if you cant afford insurance go on social security disability and make the government pay for your medicare.That way you wont be arrested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
The Constitution doesn't say anything about not owning slaves or women voting, we had to add that stuff later.
It doesent state that you MUST own slaves anywhere either! But, recognizing that slaves and women had to be recognized under the constitution and given equal rights HAD to be included in the constitution or, it negated the very spirit of the document.
However, enforcing equality under the constitution is a FAR cry from a requirement that the government provide healthcare and FORCE the populace to pay for it AND participate in it under the threat of fines and imprisonment.

BTW, it was Republicans in BOTH instances that ADDED freedom for the slaves and women's voting rights!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
It doesent state that you MUST own slaves anywhere either! But, recognizing that slaves and women had to be recognized under the constitution and given equal rights HAD to be included in the constitution or, it negated the very spirit of the document.
However, enforcing equality under the constitution is a FAR cry from a requirement that the government provide healthcare and FORCE the populace to pay for it AND participate in it under the threat of fines and imprisonment.

BTW, it was Republicans in BOTH instances that ADDED freedom for the slaves and women's voting rights!
Are you saying that the Abolitionists had a better interpretation of the Constitution than the slave-owning Founding Fathers? You're gonna get verbally raped on this forum with radical Left Wing pinko rhetoric like that! :taped:
 

·
A Way of Life
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
The Constitution doesn't say anything about not owning slaves or women voting, we had to add that stuff later.
Article I, section 9 reads...

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
This was The Great Compromise. Slavery was to end by 1808. So, the Constitution does say something about owning slaves, but says nothing about forcing citizens to "buy" government healthcare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
Are you saying that the Abolitionists had a better interpretation of the Constitution than the slave-owning Founding Fathers? You're gonna get verbally raped on this forum with radical Left Wing pinko rhetoric like that! :taped:
No, what I said was that in order for the document to live up to it's meaning, it had to apply to everyone...and still does. The abolitionists stood on a moral ground, not a constitutional one.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top