Posted on 01/18/2017 11:10:28 PM PST by BenLurkin
You are sounding more and more like you have been partaking of the plant we’ve been discussing.
You sound like a man who understands his argument is bunk and chooses to resort to name calling rather than learn something.
Try to name one power the federal government could not claim under your preferred interpretation of the general welfare clause. How could any claim to power be denied, as long as it was claimed to be for the purpose of advancing the general welfare? It would render the Constitution moot - or “incoherent”, as James Madison put it when directly addressing this issue.
“You sound like a man who understands his argument is bunk and chooses to resort to name calling rather than learn something.”
What name did I call you? Our conversation is in writing. Do a copy and paste.
Rather than play a game of hypothetical with you I will repeat what I said. The general welfare clause has been abused but IMHO (and the opinion of stacks of legal opinion and Supreme Court cases) the regulation of drugs clearly falls under that definition.
So deal with it.
What a great argument. Since you've descended into pedantry and an ears-in-fingers cognitive dissonance reaction to realizing that you do in fact support unlimited federal power - as unconservative an idea as there is - we're done here.
I'll keep in mind in the future, when reviewing your comments, that federal tyranny is A-OK in your book.
And I will keep in mind that you post lies (non-existent name calling), mischaracterizations and wild flights of fantasy.
"And I will keep in mind that you post lies (non-existent name calling), mischaracterizations and wild flights of fantasy."
You know you're lying through your teeth, why are you digging in further here exactly? What have you to gain by risking liability for slander?
Cut and paste my lies or name calling. If you want to keep this up I will call in the mods. Last chance to go away quietly.
Do bring them; your behavior is objectively crude and classless, and below the standard which is expected here.
Please consider gently suggesting to thoughtomater to drop it. Threats of libel are unwarranted, and claims of name calling are unjustified.
As the record shows, jdsteel has been exposed as a supporter of limitless federal power and an opponent of the Constitution - a position which is in direct opposition to the mission of this site.
Once so exposed, he immediately moved to personal insult that could be differentiated from an actionable tort of libel only by him having couched it in weasel words, and follows it up by insulting both you and I by pretending that doesn’t constitute name-calling.
Each of these have been considered adequate cause for removal of posting privileges by abusive posters in the past, and I would suggest that at least a temporary suspension is warranted in this case, to send a message that personal attacks on other posters are not a civilized or acceptable reaction to a discussion not going the way he wanted it to.
Thanks; I rest my case.
You’d better watch how casually you disrespect others, or one of these days you’re going to have an actual case on your hands, as defendant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.