Replies

[underlined text omitted by RFEngineer:] while we don’t generally disagree on the merits of states rights, to me, you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them.

In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.

These are your words, not mine.

My words accurately express your position - and I'll be happy to keep both sets of words in each post so FReepers can judge for themselves.

Whatever you say, Kreskin.

I've restored the text you omitted, so that FReepers can judge for themselves.

And legalization of drugs is entirely absent from discussions about ending welfare. People tend to discuss one issue at a time - nothing nefarious there.

So personal responsibility is so far from drug legalization in your opinion, that they aren’t even worthy of discussion together?

I never said nor implied that. Your feeble straw man argument is duly noted for the record. One may certainly discuss them together - and one may discuss them separately without implying anything about one's position on either one.

Nonsense - there’s no basis for concluding from one’s silence on issue X while discussing issue Y that one holds any particular view about issue X.

Except when X = Y.

In this case it doesn't: X = ending welfare, Y = legalizing drugs.

All of it - and the more the better. I’d never hold one Constitutional limit hostage to another as you advocate.

I advocate to the contrary.

False - you said, "you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them."

The “legalize” crowd wants to pick and choose. They want their drugs now AND their disability checks from Uncle Sam.

Then go argue with them. I want all Constitutional limits obeyed - unlike you.