On 3/20/2017 5:03 PM, Wolf K. wrote:
Only a few states have significant border issues, so I feel it would be
better to let those states handle the problems, with coordination with
each other, and the federal government, for handling the
international/treaty aspects. In short, if Texas, or Arizona want to
build a wall, they should be able to do it.
On 2017-03-20 11:47, Disaster Master wrote:
On Mon Mar 20 2017 11:02:33 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), Wolf K.
On 2017-03-20 10:32, Disaster Master wrote:
Really? You don't believe that taxation - like all Law - is, in the
enforced at gunpoint?
Well, of course.
Then stop saying otherwise.
I haven't. I've merely done a reductio ad absurduim to show the
silliness of the reason that you keep harping on this: your argument is
that since laws are enforced "at gunpoiint" that tgherefore they are evil.
It's the only language the thugs understand.
Not sure if you mean the enforcers, or those at the receiving end of the
However, most people don't need to be forced into compliance,
<snip> the rest of the irrelevant prattle.
Ah, but it's what's most relevant. If you don't see that, you have no
relevant understanding of how humans actually behave.
BTW, why do you believe that a document framed before there were
streetcars implies that the government has no role to play in transit?
Again, that question is completely irrelevant.
There is, in fact, no delegation of power or authority over 'transit' in
Quite right, the Constitution does not refer to "transit". It also does
not refer to immigration either. Nor to borders. Or a whole host of
other things, such a railroads, highways, aviation, etc. So, to be
consistent, your stance would have to be that the Federal Government has
no power or authority over any of these things.
[snip literalist irrelevancies]
general mailing list