On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:01:42 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <PeqdnSQqNZkcnArNnZ2dnUVZ_vudn...@mchsi.com>,
> trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 5:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> > On 11/4/2012 1:18 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> >> On 11/4/12 10:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> >>> On 11/4/2012 5:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> >>>> On 11/3/12 6:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> >>>>> On 11/3/2012 2:58 PM, Q JINN wrote:
>> >>>>>> Mitt Romney thinks it's not the governments job to care for hurricane
>> >>>>>> victims.
>> >>>>> Mr. Romney is right - it *ISN'T* the government's job to care for
>> >>>>> hurricane victims or any other kind of victim.
>> >>>> Which part of the Constitution is that in?
>> >>> Wrong question, "comrade". You tell us: where in the Constitution is
>> >>> the power to "care for" citizens enumerated?
>> >> I think it's very hard to misconstrue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>> >> happiness".
>> > That's not in the Constitution, "comrade". You failed.
>> No, but it's indicative of the spirit in which this country was founded. >> Hey, I get it--you guys lack the intectual firepower to discuss the >> topic.
>LOL! The tubby homunculus quotes the Declaration of Independence when >asked for a cite from the Constitution, and then has the berries to tell >others they lack intellectual firepower, and then misspells >'intellectual' while he does it.
>I love it!
<VBG>
Leftwingers..mentally ill and stupid....the entire bunch of them.
Gunner
--
"President Obama is not going to lose. He will be re-elected. It is those of
you who have these grand fantasies of that pip-squeak Romney actually having
a chance at winning the election that will have to wake up to reality the
day after the election. I hear there is plenty of room in the rest of the
world where you can reside and establish new citizenship.
Kirby Grant,<KGr...@yahoo.com>
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:06:43 -0700, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for hurricane
>>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an army/navy.
>>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>>> Private individuals are US citizens for whom the governement is supposed
>>> to promote the general welfare.
>> The general welfare means the *general* conditions within which people >> take care of themselves. It does not mean, and never did mean, to help >> individual persons overcome adversity. That's not the role of government.
>Right, the general population of those people affected by the hurricane.
Cites?
>That's a group that otherwise wouldn't need help if earthquakes, >tornados or hurricanes didn't devastate the area they live in.
So average Americans who live in poverty ..say..blacks are not
included then?
Obviouisly not..we have millions of them still living in poverty,
despite Gazillions of dollars being allocated towards them, from LBJs
Great Society and forwards.
Or..is it simply money pissed down a well?
Gunner
--
"President Obama is not going to lose. He will be re-elected. It is those of
you who have these grand fantasies of that pip-squeak Romney actually having
a chance at winning the election that will have to wake up to reality the
day after the election. I hear there is plenty of room in the rest of the
world where you can reside and establish new citizenship.
Kirby Grant,<KGr...@yahoo.com>
>>> Mitt Romney thinks it's not the governments job to care for
>>> hurricane victims.
>> Mr. Romney is right - it *ISN'T* the government's job to care for
>> hurricane victims or any other kind of victim.
>Well *thar's* yer problem...
>-- wds
Actually Comrade..its everyones problem.
Gunner
--
"President Obama is not going to lose. He will be re-elected. It is those of
you who have these grand fantasies of that pip-squeak Romney actually having
a chance at winning the election that will have to wake up to reality the
day after the election. I hear there is plenty of room in the rest of the
world where you can reside and establish new citizenship.
Kirby Grant,<KGr...@yahoo.com>
>> I love how libs just assume that if the Dems don't win an
>> election, it must have been 'stolen'.
>And I expect, reasonably I think, to hear a lot of "We wuz robbed!"
>screaming from the right if Obama wins on Tuesday.
>-- wds
The sound you should worry more about..is the sound of cartridges
being loaded into firearms all across the nation..and the ringing of
cash registers as rope and barbed wire are purchased.
<VBG>
The Great Cull is coming.
<VBG>
Gunner
--
"President Obama is not going to lose. He will be re-elected. It is those of
you who have these grand fantasies of that pip-squeak Romney actually having
a chance at winning the election that will have to wake up to reality the
day after the election. I hear there is plenty of room in the rest of the
world where you can reside and establish new citizenship.
Kirby Grant,<KGr...@yahoo.com>
> No, but it's indicative of the spirit in which this country was founded.
> Hey, I get it--you guys lack the intectual firepower to discuss the
> topic.
LOL! The tubby homunculus quotes the Declaration of Independence when
asked for a cite from the Constitution, and then has the berries to tell
others they lack intellectual firepower, and then misspells
'intellectual' while he does it.
> In article <PeqdnSQqNZkcnArNnZ2dnUVZ_vudn...@mchsi.com>,
> trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 5:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2012 1:18 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/12 10:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/2012 5:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/3/12 6:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 2:58 PM, Q JINN wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mitt Romney thinks it's not the governments job to care for hurricane
>>>>>>>> victims.
>>>>>>> Mr. Romney is right - it *ISN'T* the government's job to care for
>>>>>>> hurricane victims or any other kind of victim.
>>>>>> Which part of the Constitution is that in?
>>>>> Wrong question, "comrade". You tell us: where in the Constitution is
>>>>> the power to "care for" citizens enumerated?
>>>> I think it's very hard to misconstrue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>>>> happiness".
>>> That's not in the Constitution, "comrade". You failed.
>> No, but it's indicative of the spirit in which this country was founded.
>> Hey, I get it--you guys lack the intectual firepower to discuss the
>> topic.
> LOL! The tubby homunculus quotes the Declaration of Independence when
> asked for a cite from the Constitution, and then has the berries to tell
> others they lack intellectual firepower, and then misspells
> 'intellectual' while he does it.
> I love it!
I admitted my mistake, and then I trashed you because of your lack of a coherent argument. You are an anonyshit that lacks the brains and the balls to be in a rational discussion with me, which I've proven a thousand times over. Any questions, buddy?
> On 11/4/2012 7:01 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 5:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2012 1:30 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/12 1:10 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/2012 9:26 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>> YOUR 'constitution' gives you the right to Life, Liberalism & The
>>>>>> pursuit of ignorance.
>>>>> HE FOUND IT! HE FOUND IT!
>>>> How many times is my side going to declare intellectual bankruptcy,
>>>> buddy?
> In article <he-dnV_4d9VbYwvNnZ2dnUVZ_qmdn...@mchsi.com>,
> trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <4u6dnaQhpaJsQQvNnZ2dnUVZ_radn...@mchsi.com>,
>>> trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for hurricane
>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an army/navy.
>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>>> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
>>>>> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
>>>>> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
>>>>> to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
>>>>> for the United States of America.
>>> You didn't even quote the right General Welfare clause, you
>>> Cheeto-stained ignoramus. That's the Preamble, which the Supreme Court
>>> has held to merely be introductory language and has no legal weight or
>>> effect. Go into court and cite the Preamble as the basis for your claim
>>> and see how far that gets you.
>> If FEMA was illegal, or if helping disaster victims on the federal
>> level was illegal in any way, you'll have ample reasoning how that
>> is and why FEMA is still allowed to operate.
> Because the Executive and Legislative branches have been acting
> extra-constitutionally, with the blessing of the Judiciary, since FDR's
> New Deal.
Does not compute. Why haven't the teabaggers filed lawsuits, then, as per their agenda?
> Checks and balances don't mean much when they're all acting in concert
> with each other.
The logical progression to your horseshit line of reasoning is that all of you buttmunches complaining about our system of government should get together and secede from the Union. The last time we heard crap like this was when people were flying a Confederate flag.
Get your anonyshit head out of your ass and say something that's consequential for a change. TIA.
> In article <ncKdnbjT-ofwmArNnZ2dnUVZ_radn...@supernews.com>,
> cloud dreamer <red...@reuse.andrecycle.com> wrote:
>> On 04/11/2012 8:34 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> How do you explain climate change, a hundred
>>> years ago, before we had freon?
>> Freon was only a tiny fraction of the chemicals going into the
>> atmosphere. It's damage is to the Ozone layer and its ban in 1995 has
>> taken one of the most damaging chemicals out of production.
>> The worst GHGs have been around much longer and are being produced in
>> massive quantities compared to freon. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
>> methane etc are the worst culprits. They've been pumped into the
>> atmosphere in huge quantities since the beginning of the industrial
>> revolution.
> How do you explain climate change ten millennia before the Industrial
> Revolution?
How will that particular straw man argument help you?
> On 11/4/2012 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>> Private individuals are US citizens for whom the governement is supposed
>> to promote the general welfare.
> The general welfare means the *general* conditions within which people
> take care of themselves. It does not mean, and never did mean, to help
> individual persons overcome adversity.
> On 11/4/2012 3:48 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <4u6dnaQhpaJsQQvNnZ2dnUVZ_radn...@mchsi.com>,
>>> trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>>> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
>>>>> Union,
>>>>> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
>>>>> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
>>>>> Liberty
>>>>> to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
>>>>> Constitution
>>>>> for the United States of America.
>>> You didn't even quote the right General Welfare clause, you
>>> Cheeto-stained ignoramus. That's the Preamble, which the Supreme Court
>>> has held to merely be introductory language and has no legal weight or
>>> effect. Go into court and cite the Preamble as the basis for your claim
>>> and see how far that gets you.
>> Again, "legal weight" is a straw man argument.
> No, it isn't. It gets to the core of the issue.
No, because there is Z E R O legal precedent for what he's saying.
> It is not the job of government to alleviate the alleged suffering of
> alleged victims - not ever.
Why does FEMA continue to exist, "George"? Do you have any facts to support your claims whatsoever, or are you merely trolling?
> On 11/4/2012 4:00 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
> On 11/4/2012 4:01 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 5:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2012 1:29 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/12 10:22 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/2012 5:47 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/12 12:05 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 7:52 PM, Tom wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 6:43 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 2:58 PM, Q JINN wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mitt Romney thinks it's not the governments job to care for
>>>>>>>>>> hurricane victims.
>>>>>>>>> Mr. Romney is right - it *ISN'T* the government's job to care for
>>>>>>>>> hurricane victims or any other kind of victim.
>>>>>>>> But Gov. Romney has given his full- throated support to FEMA post-
>>>>>>>> Sandy...
>>>>>>> Cite, please.
>>>>>> Here you go, buddy: there's 278000 hits on google you can choose
>>>>>> from.
>>>>> You lied, of course, "comrade" - not a single one of those shows Gov.
>>>>> Romney giving <chortle> "full-throated support to FEMA."
>>>>> Verminous left-wing shitbags like you always lie. How would you
>>>>> like a
>>>>> fist in the face for lying, you squat-to-piss homo liar?
>>>> Just to help you out, George, "full throated support of FEMA" was Tom's
>>>> quote, which you should've shown in your post but didn't.
>>> It did, verminous left-wing cocksucker. It's still there, too.
>> But you lack the balls to respond to the gist of my post?
> On 11/4/2012 4:02 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 5:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>>> Private individuals are US citizens for whom the governement is supposed
>>> to promote the general welfare.
>> Yes.
> No. That's not what "the general welfare" means. Promoting the general
> welfare means helping to assure - not *create*, you fuckwit - the
> conditions in which people take care of themselves.
Your opinion and a dollar will get me a ride on the bus. At this point I have to assume that you have no facts to back up your assertions. Therefore you are a troll. Agree or disagree?
> On 11/4/2012 4:05 PM, cloud dreamer wrote:
>> On 04/11/2012 8:30 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 11/4/12 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>>> Sure--if you smoke crack.
>> BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...is this George guy for real?????
> I've kicked his ass and busted his fucking slack jaw, and I've done the
> same to you. You two fainéants have lost.
> George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>>> Private individuals are US citizens for whom the governement is supposed
>>> to promote the general welfare.
>> The general welfare means the *general* conditions within which people
>> take care of themselves. It does not mean, and never did mean, to
>> help individual persons overcome adversity. That's not the role of
>> government.
> Right, the general population of those people affected by the hurricane.
> That's a group that otherwise wouldn't need help if earthquakes,
> tornados or hurricanes didn't devastate the area they live in.
Suzee, you don't get it: the federal government has acted illegally by even having a FEMA. "George Plimpton" and "BTR1701" have said as much, and the Supreme Court should be hearing the case any day now. Since they are both anonymous pieces of trash, though, it is unclear if anyone will actually show up for the court date. The "Tea Party" will continue to be mad as hell, though.
> On 11/4/12 8:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <ncKdnbjT-ofwmArNnZ2dnUVZ_radn...@supernews.com>,
>> cloud dreamer <red...@reuse.andrecycle.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2012 8:34 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>> How do you explain climate change, a hundred
>>>> years ago, before we had freon?
>>> Freon was only a tiny fraction of the chemicals going into the
>>> atmosphere. It's damage is to the Ozone layer and its ban in 1995 has
>>> taken one of the most damaging chemicals out of production.
>>> The worst GHGs have been around much longer and are being produced in
>>> massive quantities compared to freon. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
>>> methane etc are the worst culprits. They've been pumped into the
>>> atmosphere in huge quantities since the beginning of the industrial
>>> revolution.
>> How do you explain climate change ten millennia before the Industrial
>> Revolution?
> How will that particular straw man argument help you?
Yup. Typical argument of one that doesn't understand climate. Doesn't understand that climate is dynamic and always changing.
The difference today is the rate of change. Nature adds CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate of roughly 1 ppm every 400 years as the planet moves from ice age to interglacial period.
We are doing that today at a rate of 1 ppm EVERY FOUR MONTHS.
Nature increases the global temp by 1.0 degree C in roughly 10,000 years.
We are dong that today at a rough rate of 1.0 degree C IN ONE HUNDRED YEARS.
Actually the rate over the last three decades is 0.2 degrees per decade. That means we'll have done it in FIFTY YEARS.
That kind of sudden climate change takes an external force. A super volcanic eruption can cause sudden climate change by putting so much particulate into the air that it blocks out the sun and the temperatures drop.
The same with collisions from asteroids/comets.
Pumping billions of tonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere CANNOT **NOT** have an effect. For most of the Industrial Revolution and up to around 1980, a great deal of that excess GHG managed to find places to sequester - carbon sinks like ocean so that atmospheric rates climbed slowly but is now accelerating because the carbon sinks are now near or at saturation.
CO2 is approaching 400 PPM. The usual natural high in the usual climate cycle is 300-320 PPM. Some warming is now irreversible even if we stopped today. At 600 PPM, the warming becomes impossible to stop. At over 1000 PPM, life as we know it will begin to become extinct. The temperatures on the planet will simply be too hot to support life.
Well, except for the families of the oil executives. They'll be so rich, they will have built domes to live under.
And no, none of this means it will stop snowing. By the time it gets that warm, we won't be around to see it.
BTW...it's November 5th. Yesterday, several of my neighbours were mowing their lawns. When I was young, snowstorms at the end of October were routine and this year we have yet to even have a killing frost.
trotsky wrote:
> On 11/4/12 11:06 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2012 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>>>> Private individuals are US citizens for whom the governement is supposed
>>>> to promote the general welfare.
>>> The general welfare means the *general* conditions within which people
>>> take care of themselves. It does not mean, and never did mean, to
>>> help individual persons overcome adversity. That's not the role of
>>> government.
>> Right, the general population of those people affected by the hurricane.
>> That's a group that otherwise wouldn't need help if earthquakes,
>> tornados or hurricanes didn't devastate the area they live in.
> Suzee, you don't get it: the federal government has acted illegally by > even having a FEMA. "George Plimpton" and "BTR1701" have said as much, > and the Supreme Court should be hearing the case any day now. Since > they are both anonymous pieces of trash, though, it is unclear if anyone > will actually show up for the court date. The "Tea Party" will continue > to be mad as hell, though.
You think I'm going to believe them...? Someone has to bring suit in a lower court first, then all the way through appellate courts and it takes YEARS to come before the Supreme Court.
trotsky wrote:
> On 11/4/12 10:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 4:02 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 11/4/12 5:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>>>> Private individuals are US citizens for whom the governement is supposed
>>>> to promote the general welfare.
>>> Yes.
>> No. That's not what "the general welfare" means. Promoting the general
>> welfare means helping to assure - not *create*, you fuckwit - the
>> conditions in which people take care of themselves.
> Your opinion and a dollar will get me a ride on the bus. At this point > I have to assume that you have no facts to back up your assertions. > Therefore you are a troll. Agree or disagree?
One could say that having the government put things back in working order after a disaster helps improve the conditions so 'individual' people can take care of themselves... But that would probably be beyond his comprehension.
> On 11/4/12 8:45 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 7:01 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 11/4/12 5:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:30 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:10 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 9:26 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>>> YOUR 'constitution' gives you the right to Life, Liberalism &
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> pursuit of ignorance.
>>>>>> HE FOUND IT! HE FOUND IT!
>>>>> How many times is my side going to declare intellectual bankruptcy,
>>>>> buddy?
>>>> Ceaselessly, "comrade" - ceaselessly.
>>> Lack of balls duly noted.
>> Your lack of a brain duly noted!
> Now you're just lyin'.
No, he isn't. You have no critical thinking ability whatever. You prove it in every post.
> On 11/4/12 10:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 3:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2012 1:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for
>>>>>>> hurricane
>>>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>>>> firefighters or the army.
>>>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an
>>>>>> army/navy.
>>>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.
>>>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?
>>>> It doesn't mean to help private individuals.
>>> Private individuals are US citizens for whom the governement is supposed
>>> to promote the general welfare.
>> The general welfare means the *general* conditions within which people
>> take care of themselves. It does not mean, and never did mean, to help
>> individual persons overcome adversity.
> Your proof of this is where, exactly?
The Federalist Papers, the other writings of the founders, every treatise on the legitimate ends of government.
You, of course, have never found anything that says the purpose of government is to help people in need.
