"The first fallacy you employ is amphiboly. You have detached the word "welfare" from the meaning it had when the document was written, and attempted to attach to it the meaning that has been assigned it by popular culture in the last 30 years." - Yeti Nonsense. I asked *you* to give your definition of the general welfare clause. - Southack
"And I did. I notice you didn't have a comment about that."
Whew, talk about straying from the point! Your claim above is that I was being ambiguous, even though you agree that I actually asked *you* for *your* definition to avoid any amphiboly, and somehow you reply with "I notice you didn't have a comment about that."
Oh please...
No Southack, you began by asserting that the article to which you referred justifies social giveaway programs such as social security, etc...
You still haven't given us a map of the path you took from the words to your conclusion, and I'm not holding my breath.
I think I have done a pretty good job of justfying my opinion, even though I really don't think I am obliged to do so.
Put up or shut up now.
How do justify your interpretation?