On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:11:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


snipped for brevity


Sorry, but I didn't bother to read your rant. Is that what you were
trying
to say? If so, no. I think it was and is a mistake.

Of course you didn't read my note. Difficulty of understanding would
ensue. To quote you;

"They are state or federal laws passed by and promoted by our
elected officials, and approved by the citizenry for the general
welfare of society."

It shouldn't be too difficult to appreciate the fact that you face the
dilemma of a contradiction. Mandatory insurance laws are necessarily
for the general welfare of society, but the Patriot Act wasn't?

Umm... are you claiming that the Patriot Act is an insurance law?

-To put this on the simplest of terms, our elected officials pass
mandatory insurance laws.
-Officials have the implicit approval of the voters to pass those laws
for the general welfare of society.
-Elected officials passed the Patriot Act.
-Ergo, the Patriot Act was passed for the general welfare of society.

Nice try at logic, but it has a teensy tiny flaw. Look up "affirming the
consequent."

Then it should be an easy thing for you to deconstruct for the purpose
of illustration.


I'd be happy to after you get the logic sorted out.

That's amusing. After the logic is "sorted out," why bother with
deconstruction?
What a farce!

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:11:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


snipped for brevity
I'd be happy to after you get the logic sorted out.

That's amusing. After the logic is "sorted out," why bother with
deconstruction?
What a farce!


I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume