November 2006 (Merge)

[angelofdeath]

yeah right. the dems wont get anything done just like the republicans didnt get thier agenda passed.

aside from 3 out of 5 of your list being unconstitutional, they WILL NOT investigate the bush administration. they are actually in cahoots with the administration already.

and congress didnt even get us a fence, they gave us an unfunded fence bill.

 

i dont think i need to comment on my position on the other 3 on the list, other than saying that they are unconstitutional and that the federal government shouldnt be involved in any of it. wishing for a government that only does "good things" for the 'greater good' is like wishing for a rattle snake that only provides percussive accompanyment to mariachi music.

[HardyHarHar]

yeah, minimum wage is unconstitutional. duh.

[fermentor666]

and waco is totally relevant. that is what happens when the democrats are running shit and you try to bear arms peacefully. they burn you the fuck down.

 

these politicans in DC need to stop even thinking about gay marriage and stem cell research. they are state issues, plain and simple.

i urge DC to withdraw from all areas they arent supposed to be involved in.

it wont happen.

 

 

 

Waco isn't especially relevant because it was far more complicated than the Davidians having automatic weapons. That was a major reason for the raid, but there was also incredible pressure from the community for authorities to intervene in some way. It's also still unclear who started the fires. David Koresh was a lunatic, and his cult was just that, a cult. It wasn't just a woodsmen militia, these were "end of times" religious zealots and could very well have set themselves on fire and for the most part they all stayed inside the building while it was on fire. They could have been afraid of being shot, but still.

 

And gay marriage and stem cell research do have some business in the federal government, because they are religious issues and there is the whole question of seperation of church and state. If one state bans stem cell research because of religious belief, the federal government has a responsibility to the constitution to intervene.

[WORDISM45]

man watch waco: a new revelation, or waco:rules of engagement. theyre not sleazy alex jones documentaries they are actually well made and reliably sourced. There's compelling evidence to suggest people were shot as they tried to escape the burning compound. And you cant just put it down to 'oh they were nuts' because they weren't hurting anyone and the way the entire situation was handled by the government was absolutely disgraceful and criminal.

[Larry Pubes]

i don't know why you guys continue to bother even approaching the almighty constitution while aod is on here. he will never accept anything other than his own stubborn interpretation of it, and that's that.

[russell jones]

yes, i think people should be able to own assault weapons. i own them. my friends own them. my family owns them, etc.

the right to bear arms obviously has a whole new meaning with todays weapons. in pre 'gun' times, arms meant a sword. during the founding of our country it meant, a flintlock rifle, or musket. today it means an ar 15, an ak 47 etc.

prominent 2nd amendment scholars pretty much make the case that the line is drawn at military small arms. in another words, you should be able to own, the same weapons your military uses. for several reasons, the first being, in case the unorganized militia (still to this day every able bodied male 18-45 and due to the equality laws, woman could be included in this as well) had to help repel a foreign invasion in tandem with our own military. the interchange would be very helpful. secondly, you want to have equal fire power as your army incase you have to try to defend your self from them. before you dismiss this, just remember iraq. a couple thousand insurgents are bogging down the whole US army.

 

personally i think bombs, overall are bad things. but they, like government are a necessary evil, simply because other countries have them. they inflict massive civilian casualities in short periods of time. where as small arms can be concentrated on the just the immediate threat.

 

in my own opinion i think the average citizen should, under the second amendment be able to own full auto small arms, belt fed .50 machine guns, and anything needed to make IED's etc. this should all be protected by law. and i do not think for one minute think with these weapons available everyone will go buck wild crazy and kill every one any more than they are now with these weapons that are available on the black market, pretty easily.

 

 

The ironic thing is that the people of Iraq under US occupation are allowed to own fully-auto AK-47's, whereas people in the US have to get specialized permits for them.

[angelofdeath]

another funny thing about iraq, is that the US has imperialized thier market. they have an assload of oil, and the Us has price controls on it. its hilarious. its so rediculous and hard to get with the price controls that kids go out and fill up 5 and 10 gallon cans and sell them to cars in line.

 

"Waco isn't especially relevant because it was far more complicated than the Davidians having automatic weapons. That was a major reason for the raid, but there was also incredible pressure from the community for authorities to intervene in some way. It's also still unclear who started the fires. David Koresh was a lunatic, and his cult was just that, a cult. It wasn't just a woodsmen militia, these were "end of times" religious zealots and could very well have set themselves on fire and for the most part they all stayed inside the building while it was on fire. They could have been afraid of being shot, but still.

 

And gay marriage and stem cell research do have some business in the federal government, because they are religious issues and there is the whole question of seperation of church and state. If one state bans stem cell research because of religious belief, the federal government has a responsibility to the constitution to intervene."

 

so what if a bunch of religious zealots want to preach revelations on thier own property. they werent hurting anyone. plain and simple. koresh had a warrant that needed to be served on him because thier was a possibility he violated some firearms laws (federal firearms laws are all unconstitutional anyway)

 

if the federal government went and attacked a hippy compound, i would be just as angry.

so lets see how the warrant was served. instead of approaching koresh on one of his many trips to town, walking, they decided to get him at the compound. how was the warrant served you asked? by dozens of black ski masked batf agents brought in on a cattle trailer. and when the front door was opened, they fired on the inside of the compound. personally, this doesnt sound like a typical paper being served to me. then once the people inside returned fire IN DEFENSE, the government brought in tanks, helicopters, and employed torture tactics that most people are crying about being used on the people at gitmo. yeah, the democrats are hypocrites. they are decrying 'torture' of the people in gitmo, but condone it in the case of 'religious zealots' who werent a threat to anyone.

 

so yes, waco is totally relevant. absolutely totally fucking relevant. that is what happens when you want to own guns under a democratic adminstration. or maybe you missed chuck schumers performance in the court room.

 

the federal government has absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY to intervene if a state bans or passes stem cell funding. absolutely none. sorry fermentor but 'separation of church and state' do not appear in the constitution. the first amendment merely says 'congress shall write no law" respecting an establishment of religion. even left wing law students will fully acknowledge that the constitution itself grants no jurisdiction on these so called church state issues. which is why they rely on 'precedent' to handle it.

remember the so called church and state decision wasnt handed down until 1947 and by a KKK member at that.

I am not in any way condoning religious indoctrination by the federal government onto the people, but they have no business talking about those issues either way. religious indoctrination isnt enumerated and there are no amendments for it. and there are no amendments for separation of church and state issues.

 

until the fraudulently passed 14th amendment and 20th century precedents were set, the federal government was hardly as centralized as it is today. the bill of rights didnt even apply to the states until years after the 14th amendment. the bill of rights was totally for the federal government not to infringe on those rights, but the states in theory could. but after all the states created the federal government and all the state constitutions had the same rights outlined in thier respective constitutions and bills of rights.

[fermentor666]

Waco is not relevant, because if they were under legal authority to have those guns the government still would have gone in there, regardless. You're ridiculous if you think the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. Separation of church and state actually does appear in the constitution, not those specific words, but the part about not applying any religious test to any position of government.

[fermentor666]

The Constitution applied to the states from the beginning:

 

Article VI

 

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

 

There's your separation of church and state, as well. Did you go to college or are you self-taught?

[angelofdeath]

The Constitution applied to the states from the beginning:

 

Article VI

 

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

 

There's your separation of church and state, as well. Did you go to college or are you self-taught?

 

 

hahaha, so you are trying to say "religious test" is separation of church and state? damn, what did you have to have to comb over it for 'religion' to be mentioned?

sorry dude, that phrase simply means states cant impose a certain religious qualification on candidates running for office. to be exact, during the late 18th century, it ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY meant, no discrimination on branches of christianity. hell, people were even calling jefferson an athiest.

[angelofdeath]

"You're ridiculous if you think the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. Separation of church and state actually does appear in the constitution, not those specific words, but the part about not applying any religious test to any position of government."

 

it is not rediculous. have you ever studied any constitutional subjects prior to the civil war? separatino of church and state DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITITION! IN ANY FORM! it was mentioned by jefferson in the early 19th century to a baptist congregation and appears no where in our laws prior to the 1947 supreme court decision.

 

you obviously havent studied much on the subject, as far at the bill of rights not applying to the states. here is one big obvious example. in 1798 the alien and sedition acts were passed. jefferson and the republicans hated them because it abolished free speeech in criticizing the government. they didnt take a 1st amendment stance, they took a 10th amendment defense. this is because everyone at the time thought that the government had no authority to limit free speech, under the first amendment, BUT the states could limit it if they wanted to under the 10th! in short, the bill of rights applied only to the federal government until the incorporation clause was passed with the 14th amendment. the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. the states were the bulkwark against tyranny. you actually dont understand how fearful these people were of a central government. even in protecting the things listed in the bill of rights.

 

class dismissed

[angelofdeath]

"Waco is not relevant, because if they were under legal authority to have those guns the government still would have gone in there, regardless."

 

i rest my case. they dont want ANYONE to own guns. and you, by defending clinton dont support the bill of rights. such as needing a warrant to enter the property etc etc.

[fermentor666]

No education, I guess. It's clearly right in front of you and you refuse to believe it because you're an extremist. That's why no one likes or sympathizes with people like you, because you deny anything that breaks your ideology, regardless of how true it is. Keep living in your militia shell, with your gun-toting friends. I'm sure you can't wait for the day when you can take out those guns and start shooting all the liberals in sight, you fucking nutcase. Thankfully, you're warped viewpoint is only a small minority of woodsmen militia types, who would be taken out with a swiftness if they ever decided to act on their unjust intentions. I'm telling you, you should go and work for big industry, because they'd LOVE you. Actually get up, go get a college degree in law, and go work for some soulless oil company, defending their right to drill in nature reserves on falsified Locke-pretenses.

[angelofdeath]

falsified locke pretenses? how many times have i said i dont really rely or like locke that much?

 

what do you know about my education?

you are in total denial if you are basing your whole 'separation of church and state' case on the banning of religious tests.

i follow the most simple interpretation of the constitution there is. its called reading it and following exactly what it says. your clause you used to validate separation of church and state is not about 'separation of church and state' it is about the feds not being able to have religious tests for candidates running for office. this phrase does not mean that the federal government is to act as a police force enforcing a certain brand of secular humanism on the whole country and denying the peoples right to worship what they want.

 

even wikipedia gets it right:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

 

it does not mention the 'separation of church and state' based your assumption of the religious test clause.

it also lays out how the bill of rights didnt apply to the states until the 14th amendment. case in point being that various states had in thier own constitutions that you had to hold certain religious beliefs to hold office.

 

but, your right, im just a nut job, who doesnt have an education, that knows nothing about anything, let alone the constitution.

i guess that is why you totally dropped the debate (because you lost)and resorted to personal attacks. this shows me your arsenal is empty.

[fermentor666]

I dropped the debate because I realized that all you're just a nutball who's stockpiling guns to answer the call when the government gives the order to march into the ghettos and take out the poor.

[fermentor666]

It's your duty as an American to make sure none of those poor people in the cities get any of your tax-dollars right? Go get 'em cowboy! I'm sure you could kill a bunch of them black people with your machine guns and IED bombs. Then you could take out a federal building just like your buddies in Oklahoma City did! Who cares if there's kids in there, they're just going to grow up to be a bunch of federalist slaves like their parents, right?

[angelofdeath]

I dropped the debate because I realized that all you're just a nutball who's stockpiling guns to answer the call when the government gives the order to march into the ghettos and take out the poor.

 

jeez.

now you think im waiting for the government to give me the call to destroy the poor? hell, i think i probably am close to being classified as 'poor.'

 

typical liberal.

you think a person who thinks that people should try to work for a living, and if that fails, should rely on their family or private charity, and that if you dont support coercive government welfare, then that person wants to gun down the poor. this is hilarious to me, considering the sums of money i donated to various charities during katrina.

 

thanks for showing your lack of knowledge on all these subjects.

i forgot, ignorance is synonomous with 'social democrat.'

[fermentor666]

Admit it, you're just itching to kill with that trigger finger.

[fermentor666]

1. You wouldn't have had to give money for Katrina if the federal government had provided the funds to build up the levee and the support needed to provide the thousands of below-poverty line citizens the transport that they so direly needed, in one of the poorest states in the Union.

 

2. No shit it doesn't actually say "separation of church and state" in Article VI, but if you had any brains at all you'd realize that line is the founding argument for separation of church and state and the removal of the religious tests that England began to require for public office and any sort of public or licensed job effectively was separating the church from the state. It wasn't put into the constitution as a precautionary measure. It was put into the constitution because the government of England had required it's citizens to swear an oath to the Church of England. It's clearly a call for the separation of church and state if not an outright declaration of it, and at the very least was a primary influence on later legislation regarding the manner.

 

3. Anyone who advocates the legalization of bombs for the use of citizens has questionable ethics and motives.

 

4. It's clearly stated that states are under obligation to the Constitution, in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION!!!

 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS!!! That's why I'm writing you off as a nut who's stockpiling guns for the day that everyone in the cities has finally had enough of getting fucked over by the federal government. That's your solution to the problem, killing the poor. If you have money to give to charities and you're clearly privileged enough to have a computer and internet access, then you're obviously not in the same category. I live in one of the most "liberal" states in the country (one that has had a Republican governor for the last 18 years, mind you), with one of the best public school systems in the nation and I can still see past the state boundaries enough to know that the rest of the country is quite different. Hell, I don't even have to look out of the state, there's plenty of ghetto around Massachusetts, too. So keep calling me a social communist or whatever and I'll keep calling you a foolish man.

 

Do you even write graffiti? It goes against everything that you stand for, appropriating someone else's property for your own means against their permission and against the law. If you write graffiti, then you're a major hypocrite, and if you don't, then what the fuck are you doing here? Stop shitting in someone else's house and go find some anti-federalist militia boards or join up with LaRouche. You're not fooling anyone here with your history distortions.

[angelofdeath]

"1. You wouldn't have had to give money for Katrina if the federal government had provided the funds to build up the levee and the support needed to provide the thousands of below-poverty line citizens the transport that they so direly needed, in one of the poorest states in the Union."

 

the government doing anything more than delivering the mail, providing a means of uniting the states for treaties, defense, etc. is simply asking for failure. plain and simple. you saw how central planners respond to a disaster. first and foremost a strict constructionist view would argue that the feds have no obligation to fund any objects of 'benevolence.' the state should has first obligation to build this levy. but the army corp of engineers had control of it, through the great living constitution that you support. katrina is the perfect example how the feds handle everything. they turn things into a disaster. the federal government cannot manage situations like this. its similar to a bull in a china closet.

welfare was part of the problem. the entitlement state and the entitlement mindset creates more problems than it cures. it creates whole generations of people who simply cant do a damn thing for themselves. the incentive is not to work, bring home the bacon, provide for your family, provide for the community, the incentive under the welfare state is to not work. to not provide for your family. to not be a part of the community and help neighbors. the welfare state causes broken families, crime, etc. for under this system it is somehow the governments job to provide your well being. which is totally ass backwards.

 

"2. No shit it doesn't actually say "separation of church and state" in Article VI, but if you had any brains at all you'd realize that line is the founding argument for separation of church and state and the removal of the religious tests that England began to require for public office and any sort of public or licensed job effectively was separating the church from the state. It wasn't put into the constitution as a precautionary measure. It was put into the constitution because the government of England had required it's citizens to swear an oath to the Church of England. It's clearly a call for the separation of church and state if not an outright declaration of it, and at the very least was a primary influence on later legislation regarding the manner."

 

 

 

so hold on a second here... first you were arguing that the constitution SPECIFICALLY calls for separation of church and state. you provided a lame case for it. now you are saying "no shit it doesnt actually say separation of church and state." you are the most inconsistent person on here.

obviously the founders didnt create a national church. which is why we have freedom of religion in the bill of rights. to further support my case that the bill of rights didnt apply to the states until the 14th amendment (which you think is wrong, but once again you are wrong as i have proven on more than one occasion) various states actually had state run churches. some states had religious liberty, others didnt.

you cannot base the modern secular humanism imposed on america by the federal government on the banning of religious tests to hold office. the clause simply BANS RELIGIOUS TESTS. apparently you cant read.

you obviously dropped this argument because you are wrong.

why are you debating various parts of the constitution anyway? you already said this about following the constitution... allow me to quote..."fuck an extremist viewpoint like that."

 

 

"4. It's clearly stated that states are under obligation to the Constitution, in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION!!!"

 

OMG DUDEZ!!@# you have discovered the system of republican federalism. dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government. congratulations. now if you acknowledge that the states are sovereign, you will finally understand. the states check the feds and the feds check the states when teh governments are no longer 'republican.'

the states CREATED the federal government. they existed before the constitution. they created the federal government, as thier agent to tie the states together for national defense, a free trade zone, foreign treaties and to establish a navy and post roads. the constitution didnt create the states.

 

 

"That's your solution to the problem, killing the poor. If you have money to give to charities and you're clearly privileged enough to have a computer and internet access, then you're obviously not in the same category."

 

i live in a very liberal state as well. arguably just as liberal as your liberal bastion. when hurricane katrina happened, i was barely above the 'poverty line.' what do you need a copy of my paystubs or w2 forms from 2004? having a computer and the internet means nothing. you actually think every person on welfare doesnt have a car, lives in a tin shack and eats dirt? perhaps you should come down here. the 'poor' regularily drive late model cars, even european cars and lexus's. you would be astonished at the section 8 neighborhoods and the cars they have parked in front of thier houses and housing units. i work for a living, i make decent money. i dont rely on the government for anything and this is the only way to succeed. the welfare recipients are just like union members. the moochers give the actual ones in need a bad name. it is one of the most coercive, abused system in existence in america.

 

since i favor 'shooting the poor with automatic weapons fire' then you obviously support abolition of private property, the creation of a central bank, nationalizing all industry, a heavy progressive income tax, abolition of inheritance, and 'free' education. you also favor shooting all dissidents or enemies of the revolution and throwing them in the gulag. eh, comrade?

[angelofdeath]

ran out of edit time....

 

in addition to my katrina comments...

you cannot simply blame the managers of fema itself. you must blame the whole damn system. the NO disaster is the embodiment of the centrally planned society the modern statist social liberals like fermentor advocate. it is designed to fail.

 

during a crisis, the government looks to its own interests first and foremost. the citizens are far down the list. look at the municipal governments response to katrina... they were granted 500K in federal money to come up with an exit strategy. guess what it was? "get the fuck out of here and head to baton rouge!"

look at bush's reaction to 9/11 in that classroom.

it shows that government officials and the government its self possesses no god like powers to save us from anything. they are normal people, live normal lives and most get thier news from the same places we do.

they are not saviors. its high time we started treating them like it.

[fermentor666]

You're saying the same stupid shit and missing the same points. Blaming the Katrina disaster on a welfare state? You're a fucking moron, it's useless talking to you. Shut this guys mic off.

[russell jones]

AOD's not a moron, he's just obsessed. The welfare state's out to get 'em!

[fermentor666]

No, he's a fucking moron.

[angelofdeath]

fermentor obviously has a problem with people who get the better of him in a debate or he just gets so mad at another viewpoint that he resorts to name calling and character assasination. he cant simply stick to the issue. actually, i think the name calling shows a lack of more material to bring with his argument.

hell, i dont hate anyone on here, i would hang out with anyone that posts here.

 

talking politics is talking politics. its nothing personal. this is just bullshit unwind time for me.

[russell jones]

hell, i dont hate anyone on here, i would hang out with anyone that posts here.

 

talking politics is talking politics. its nothing personal. this is just bullshit unwind time for me.

 

co-sign.

[WORDISM45]

yo fermentor ive noticed a trend of whenever you're arguing with AOD he makes a nice concise argument to support his point (not that i necessarily agree with them) and then you post back calling him a moron or some other stupid shit then act all indignant all over the rest of the forum liek youve somehow proven that you're his superior, i dont know maybe i missed something but it doesnt seem to me that you have earned any right through intellectual debate to do so

[fermentor666]

fermentor obviously has a problem with people who get the better of him in a debate or he just gets so mad at another viewpoint that he resorts to name calling and character assasination. he cant simply stick to the issue. actually, i think the name calling shows a lack of more material to bring with his argument.

hell, i dont hate anyone on here, i would hang out with anyone that posts here.

 

talking politics is talking politics. its nothing personal. this is just bullshit unwind time for me.

 

 

Please, you use "liberal" as a slur, so don't hid behind that self-rightous shit. Secondly, you didn't get the better of me at all and if anyone has less material it's you. I bring up quotes and you bring up generalizations and speculation without source material. Opinion columns don't count, buddy.

[fermentor666]

yo fermentor ive noticed a trend of whenever you're arguing with AOD he makes a nice concise argument to support his point (not that i necessarily agree with them) and then you post back calling him a moron or some other stupid shit then act all indignant all over the rest of the forum liek youve somehow proven that you're his superior, i dont know maybe i missed something but it doesnt seem to me that you have earned any right through intellectual debate to do so

 

 

Yeah it's a trend, because everytime I bring something up he calls me a "typical liberal" which is such an infuriatingly stupid way to address an argument. And when I say that the federal government should have put more funding towards building up the leevees in New Orleans as well as taking care of wetland destruction over the past 20-30 years, he responds that the flooding was the fault of a "welfare state". If that's a clear and concise argument then I don't know what the fuck drugs you're on.

 

Plus he mis-quotes me or quotes me out of context, like saying that I said of the Constitution "fuck an extremist viewpoint like that" when I was talking about HIS interpretation of the Constitution. And where is the understanding of the legal system that this country runs on? If you can't understand the concept of precedent enough to understand how the religious test ban can logically lead to the seperation of church and state, then what place do you have in this discussion? You're right, I said that it's specifically stated in the Constitution and I should have said that it's strongly implied, which is enough to create a legal precedent from in this country. Not only that, but it's easy enough to learn that the founders of this country believed in seperation of church and state to the utmost point. Most of them fled England BECAUSE of religious persecution. They fought for "property" BECAUSE the King and Church denied them of it, not out of some sick desire to create a corporate utopia.

 

Hell, the whole thing started because he's denying the fact that church and state should be seperated in this country, so go ahead and side with that if you want and see how good an argument you can make out of that. And I think I can respond to someone calling me a "communist" with calling him "moron". Thanks for the review, though.

[angelofdeath]

"like saying that I said of the Constitution "fuck an extremist viewpoint like that" when I was talking about HIS interpretation of the Constitution. "

 

you are lying. you specifically said 'fuck an extremist viewpoint like that' in response to my statement that congress should declare war and not the president.

 

seperation of church and state is a great idea. it is what most founders suggested. HOWEVER you dont have a complete understanding of the topic. you think it is EXPRESSLY MENTIONED in the constitution, and it is not. the first amendment merely says "congress shall write no law..." not "there shall be a total of separation of church and state."

 

"And when I say that the federal government should have put more funding towards building up the leevees in New Orleans as well as taking care of wetland destruction over the past 20-30 years, he responds that the flooding was the fault of a "welfare state"."

 

my position, if you would of read it and not immediately wrote a response of 'you want to gun down the poor...' was that the government failed miserably during katrina. but this is to be expected. government levies failed. period. i also said that the states should of been in control of thier own levies, and the feds shouldnt of been. i did not say the "hurricane' was caused by the welfare state, but the aftermath, the mass food shortages, people being herded like cattle into stadiums, etc, is a corrollary of the welfare state. if people were self sufficient, and did not rely on the government as generations of these people did, they would of been able to handle the situation for themselves. a big difference can be seen by the areas of mississippi, after the flood. they experienced the same destruction, but the aftermath was 1/4 as bad as the show that was put on in NO.

 

"Secondly, you didn't get the better of me at all and if anyone has less material it's you. I bring up quotes and you bring up generalizations and speculation without source material.

 

i forgot... your right. you bring up sources like 'separation of churcn and state' expressly enumerated in the constitution. i've had debates on other message boards where i post serious first hand documentation on this subject, only to be called 'king of copy and paste.'

it doesnt matter what i post, you dont agree with it and you obvioulsly cannot compete with the argument, because you resort to childishness.

look man, if you cant debate something, then just stop pretending.