"Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.
405 posted on 2/2/02 10:44 PM Pacific by A.J.Armitage"
If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.
You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Read my post #11. That's what I think is wrong with Libertarians, per the subject of this thread.
Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much. I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.
As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.
If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.Nice try. You haven't answered the substance of what I said. Why should some random idiot on the internet be given more trust in matters of Constitutional interpretation than the Federalist Papers?
And for the record, I want to make sure no one falls for your crap.
You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.
That's rich. I've left your pathetic, worthless swill in the tatters is always truly was.
Nevertheless, as your return in an earlier post the your phrase fixation demonstrates, you have a very short memory, in addition to a brain that has difficulty using logic, so we'll review.
The Federalist Papers call your position absurd. Game over, I win. And that's a perfectly serious statement: any legitimate contention is over as soon as someone quotes Federalist #41. The issue has been settled for over 200 years. You, and a few other ignoramuses, are standing alone on this with nothing of any value to suport your loony assertions.
The clear meaning of the text (the entire sentence) is that the general welfare is the purpose of the power to tax. Not "without value", as your idiotic mantra asserts, but certainly not a grant of all power in Heaven and Earth, which is what your position implies, although, undercutting yourself, you're saying it's an unlimited grant of power except when it isn't. Your position can't but be wrong; you're contradicting yourself.
The context of the rest of the Constitution clearly shows that I'm right. The rest of Article I, Section 8 would be unnecessary if you were right. But you're not right and it is necessary, so it's there. In particular, there's a grant of the power you say was granted over the whole country, but it's not over the whole country, it's over an area of ten square miles or less. And, of course, there's the Tenth Amendment.
Each of the three above paragraphs is enough, on its own, to utterly demolish nonsense about a "general welfare power". The fact is, I have crushed you totally. You have nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to stand on. It's far to late to bow out gracefully. You've been humiliated. You can't stand that, can you?
I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.
The scolded puppy is you. You've been shown for what you are, and you hate it. By this point, you can't just admit you were wrong; it would be to have your nose rubbed in it all over again.
Oh, and on to the "serious" "content" of your comment quoted above. That the government does something in no way proves that it has Constitutional authorization to do it. And the post New Deal government powers aren't based on the "general welfare clause", they're based on a twisting of the commerce clause. In other words, your claim is twice wrong. Smacked down again! This has to be painful for you.
Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much.
...
As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.
"Please, stop thrashing me! My ego cannot stand the humiliation! Please let me attack others, but I am far to fragile to take it myself! My arguments are weak, but please pretend your irrefutable arguments are the weak ones. After all, the title of thread say "Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?" Pretend I beat you. Please?"