Super Bunker-Buster

[Unkotare]

No, they weren't. We don't have a national defense clause, nor even a common offense or general warfare clause. We do have a common defense clause and general welfare clause.

To danielpalos: I do not understand your response. Please clarify.

Should we "ask him" to "call us on our Commerce Clause"?

To danielpalos: Please explain why you cited the Commerce Clause.

He has no idea what it is, but it sounds 'cool,' so he drops it into almost every post.

dear, the right wing is merely, clueless and Causeless.

^^^^^^^^^

Mindless partisan drone who took one polsci course (if that) and now responds to everything with "Commerce Clause!" like a parrot with OCD.

 

[Unkotare]

We don't have a national defense clause, nor even a common offense or general warfare clause. We do have a common defense clause and general welfare clause.

To danielpalos: What we have is the parasite class double-speaking the Constitution to justify surrender and the welfare state. This is where I get off.

​

sure you do; keep whining about the cost of social services for the poor, but don't end the drug war.

Fallacy.

 

[Divine Wind]

No, they weren't. We don't have a national defense clause, nor even a common offense or general warfare clause. We do have a common defense clause and general welfare clause.

To danielpalos: I do not understand your response. Please clarify.

Should we "ask him" to "call us on our Commerce Clause"?

To danielpalos: Please explain why you cited the Commerce Clause.

He has no idea what it is, but it sounds 'cool,' so he drops it into almost every post.

dear, the right wing is merely, clueless and Causeless.

^^^^^^^^^

Mindless partisan drone who took one polsci course (if that) and now responds to everything with "Commerce Clause!" like a parrot with OCD.

Or is working on a AA degree in politics and cutting and pasting from his own term paper.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they weren't. We don't have a national defense clause, nor even a common offense or general warfare clause. We do have a common defense clause and general welfare clause.

To danielpalos: I do not understand your response. Please clarify.

Should we "ask him" to "call us on our Commerce Clause"?

To danielpalos: Please explain why you cited the Commerce Clause.

He has no idea what it is, but it sounds 'cool,' so he drops it into almost every post.

dear, the right wing is merely, clueless and Causeless.

^^^^^^^^^

Mindless partisan drone who took one polsci course (if that) and now responds to everything with "Commerce Clause!" like a parrot with OCD.

It is in our Constitution for a reason, dear. The common offense and general warfare, are not.

 

[Unkotare]

As I was saying...

 

[danielpalos]

We don't have a national defense clause, nor even a common offense or general warfare clause. We do have a common defense clause and general welfare clause.

To danielpalos: What we have is the parasite class double-speaking the Constitution to justify surrender and the welfare state. This is where I get off.

​

sure you do; keep whining about the cost of social services for the poor, but don't end the drug war.

Fallacy.

the drug war costs money; there is no need to cut social services for the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

As I was saying...

...if you cannot compete with a better argument, just resort to fallacy and appeal to the masses.

 

[Unkotare]

As I was saying....


Fallacy

 

[Unkotare]

As I was saying...

...if you cannot compete with a better argument, just resort to fallacy and appeal to the masses.

Maybe by the end of the semester you'll have up to TWO pet terms to through around randomly and without meaning or understanding.

 

[Divine Wind]

the drug war costs money; there is no need to cut social services for the poor.

1) Agreed on the drug war. Stupid. Let drug addicts die by their own hand.

2) Disagreed. While I agree on helping the sick and the old, I disagree on free handouts forever just because of a person's unwillingness to work or the melanin content of their skin.

 

[danielpalos]

the drug war costs money; there is no need to cut social services for the poor.

1) Agreed on the drug war. Stupid. Let drug addicts die by their own hand.

2) Disagreed. While I agree on helping the sick and the old, I disagree on free handouts forever just because of a person's unwillingness to work or the melanin content of their skin.

Dear, employment at will, is the law of the land.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The allies had a 22,000 lb bomb during WW2 and the US was developing a 43,000 lb bomb towards the end of WW2.

Better yet, build the shell for the bomb then pack it full of satchels each with a million dollars in it.

Same result.

 

[Divine Wind]

the drug war costs money; there is no need to cut social services for the poor.

1) Agreed on the drug war. Stupid. Let drug addicts die by their own hand.

2) Disagreed. While I agree on helping the sick and the old, I disagree on free handouts forever just because of a person's unwillingness to work or the melanin content of their skin.

Dear, employment at will, is the law of the land.

Kid, your professor (HS teacher?) would give you a D at best for that answer.

Funny that you shot down your own idea by disagreeing with me agreeing with you on the "Drug War". Figures a kid would put emotion before logic.

 

[danielpalos]

The allies had a 22,000 lb bomb during WW2 and the US was developing a 43,000 lb bomb towards the end of WW2.

Better yet, build the shell for the bomb then pack it full of satchels each with a million dollars in it.

Same result.

"Regime change EBT cards" should work.

Can we get the UN to administer it?

 

[danielpalos]

the drug war costs money; there is no need to cut social services for the poor.

1) Agreed on the drug war. Stupid. Let drug addicts die by their own hand.

2) Disagreed. While I agree on helping the sick and the old, I disagree on free handouts forever just because of a person's unwillingness to work or the melanin content of their skin.

Dear, employment at will, is the law of the land.

Kid, your professor (HS teacher?) would give you a D at best for that answer.

Funny that you shot down your own idea by disagreeing with me agreeing with you on the "Drug War". Figures a kid would put emotion before logic.

just right wing fantasy, is all y'all really have.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[Divine Wind]

just right wing fantasy, is all y'all really have.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Wow. You even hate people who agree with you the "drug war" is stupid and wasteful. Fascinating.

...Funny that you shot down your own idea by disagreeing with me agreeing with you on the "Drug War". Figures a kid would put emotion before logic.

 

[danielpalos]

just right wing fantasy, is all y'all really have.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Wow. You even hate people who agree with you the "drug war" is stupid and wasteful. Fascinating.

...Funny that you shot down your own idea by disagreeing with me agreeing with you on the "Drug War". Figures a kid would put emotion before logic.

i ignored it; all you have is diversion.

 

[Divine Wind]

just right wing fantasy, is all y'all really have.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Wow. You even hate people who agree with you the "drug war" is stupid and wasteful. Fascinating.

...Funny that you shot down your own idea by disagreeing with me agreeing with you on the "Drug War". Figures a kid would put emotion before logic.

i ignored it; all you have is diversion.

Of course you did. You're pissed at me and, like a child, even though I'm agreeing with you, you are still throwing a tantrum.

 

[danielpalos]

just right wing fantasy, is all y'all really have.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Wow. You even hate people who agree with you the "drug war" is stupid and wasteful. Fascinating.

...Funny that you shot down your own idea by disagreeing with me agreeing with you on the "Drug War". Figures a kid would put emotion before logic.

i ignored it; all you have is diversion.

Of course you did. You're pissed at me and, like a child, even though I'm agreeing with you, you are still throwing a tantrum.

doesn't really matter; it is, "drown out" by all your whining about taxes and how the poor, don't pay enough. let's, "ditch the drug war", first.

 

[Divine Wind]

doesn't really matter; it is, "drown out" by all your whining about taxes and how the poor, don't pay enough. let's, "ditch the drug war", first.

Truth does matter. Why do you persist in lying when someone disagrees with you?

Please post a single quote where I said "the poor, don't pay enough". Just one. If you can't, will you admit you lied?