Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 9 of 184 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 19 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 4592

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #201
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    He he, I like Steele. He has caused the GOP more heart burn, lost time, wasted effort, and off target messaging than anything the democrats could have done to counter them. To top it off, the GOP is more caught up in political correctness than any other organization in history!

    The GOP finds itself incapable of firing a bumbling incompetent because he is black and it might "look bad". So they find themselves in the ultimate politically correct actions they can muster, which is wasting time building fund raising mechanisms around him (that waste time) and wasting political opportunity by not being focused or on message resulting in fewer seats in the house and senate than they should gain.

    PRICELESS!
    You are absolutely correct. Which is why it completely astounds me that the Democrats aren't way more successful than they are currently (they're getting defensive and digging up personal dirt for upcoming midterms, even, rather than focusing on their strengths and actual policy and leadership weaknesses within the GOP). It would be incredibly easy, at least theoretically, to establish a generation of Democratic control similar to FDR's New Deal folks.

  2. #202
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,677
    Your being silly.

    Your own article quotes the following things. Hardly a resounding "Obama's war of choosing" argument.


    QUOTE
    Apart from the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney laid the outlines for the Afghanistan occupation and then implemented it, apart from the fact that Republican Party leaders cheered on Obama's escalation of the conflict, and apart from the fact that the primary support for maintaining a massive and open-ended occupation in Congress is coming from GOP members—two-thirds of Democrats in the House voted Thursday for amendments to a supplemental funding bill that called for development of an exit strategy—Steele's argument is sound.
    ...
    And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing."

    Unfortunately for Steele, it is also a war of the neoconservative elite's choosing, and that elite still holds a lot of sway within the Republican Party and on its pundit periphery.

    QUOTE
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  3. #203
    Cyburbian ofos's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Slightly Off-Center
    Posts
    8,260
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    that elite still holds a lot of sway within the Republican Party and on its pundit periphery.
    pundit periphery? Not nattering nabobs of negativism? Shades of William Safire and Spiro T. Agnew.
    “Death comes when memories of the past exceed the vision for the future.”

  4. #204
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally posted by ofos View post
    pundit periphery? Not nattering nabobs of negativism? Shades of William Safire and Spiro T. Agnew.

    Not my quote.

    That was from TO's post about "proof that steele was right" article from The Nation, authored by John Nichols.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  5. #205
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by Planit View post
    On top of that, several Republicans actually helping confirm Elena Kagan by comapring her views to her mentor and very respectable justice T. Marshall.



    The attacking of Marshall was utterly disgusting, especially given that the repubs who did so could not come up with any cases or positions to justify their insistance that he was a terrible, activist judge. That was a not so sly attempt by many republicans to inject the politics of racial resentment into the November elections.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  6. #206
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    Your being silly.

    Your own article quotes the following things. Hardly a resounding "Obama's war of choosing" argument.


    QUOTE
    Apart from the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney laid the outlines for the Afghanistan occupation and then implemented it, apart from the fact that Republican Party leaders cheered on Obama's escalation of the conflict, and apart from the fact that the primary support for maintaining a massive and open-ended occupation in Congress is coming from GOP members—two-thirds of Democrats in the House voted Thursday for amendments to a supplemental funding bill that called for development of an exit strategy—Steele's argument is sound.
    ...
    And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing."

    Unfortunately for Steele, it is also a war of the neoconservative elite's choosing, and that elite still holds a lot of sway within the Republican Party and on its pundit periphery.

    QUOTE
    The following paragraph is in the middle of your muddled quotation (immediately before the phrase "Unfortunately for Steele...", the last sentence you quoted above):

    As a candidate, Obama was being "too cute by half" when he framed the fantasy that Iraq was a bad war while Afghanistan was a good one.

    And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing."

  7. #207
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,677
    Both of these statements are yours. In the first, you say it is ok that Nixon increased troop levels, engaged in strategy, and worked to stand up the ARVN in the Vietnam conflict. Fair enough.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Yes and no (about Nixon and Vietnam, not your second sentence). Nixon continued the war effort, even introduced new strategies and expanding the war into Laos and Cambodia, but his goal was to start withdrawing troops and turning over South Vietnam's defenses to the ARVN. He started phased withdrawals of US troops within his first year of election. Nixon never pushed (strategically) for a US/South Vietnamese victory in the war.
    Now in this quote, you are saying exactly the opposite. As a note, you can't further increase the manpower or technological edge without increasing costs. Exactly what Nixon did. Now that Obama is doing EXACTLY the same thing, its not OK. Pick which one it is, you can't have it both ways. Nixon got no traction in Vietnam.

    Nixon had the vast majority of troops out in 1971. Without US backing, the South Vietnamese could not beat the NVA. In 1975, the US refused to back the ARVN and the south fell to the NVA. In effect the same situation you state with Obama is likely to happen without a multi decade investment in time as what happened to Nixon.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing." :
    It will go down as a LOSS and it will effect American foreign policy for years.

    So which BS story are you sticking with because you seem to want to have it both ways?
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  8. #208
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    Both of these statements are yours. In the first, you say it is ok that Nixon increased troop levels, engaged in strategy, and worked to stand up the ARVN in the Vietnam conflict. Fair enough.



    Now in this quote, you are saying exactly the opposite. As a note, you can't further increase the manpower or technological edge without increasing costs. Exactly what Nixon did. Now that Obama is doing EXACTLY the same thing, its not OK. Pick which one it is, you can't have it both ways. Nixon got no traction in Vietnam.

    Nixon had the vast majority of troops out in 1971. Without US backing, the South Vietnamese could not beat the NVA. In 1975, the US refused to back the ARVN and the south fell to the NVA. In effect the same situation you state with Obama is likely to happen without a multi decade investment in time as what happened to Nixon.



    It will go down as a LOSS and it will effect American foreign policy for years.

    So which BS story are you sticking with because you seem to want to have it both ways?
    I guess I'm not being clear. I don't want it one way or the other. I'm just saying the issue is complex. By the comparison with Nixon, I was saying it is both ways. For both Bush and Obama, in a way similar (but not identical) to Vietnam under LBJ and Nixon.

  9. #209
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,911
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    You are absolutely correct. Which is why it completely astounds me that the Democrats aren't way more successful than they are currently (they're getting defensive and digging up personal dirt for upcoming midterms, even, rather than focusing on their strengths and actual policy and leadership weaknesses within the GOP). It would be incredibly easy, at least theoretically, to establish a generation of Democratic control similar to FDR's New Deal folks.
    I think we'll see more of this in the next two years leading up to the presidential election. For now, I think the mid-terms are more about local issues where politicians are asked more about how they will deal with, respond to or otherwise help out their constituencies. I think its much less about the Big Picture stuff (or the GOP would also be talking more about repealing the Health Care legislation, etc.) and more about how well incumbents have served their voters and whether a fresh face could do a better job. But I think these are LOCAL and PERSONAL issues people are worried about now - finding a job, not losing a job, not losing a house, etc.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  10. #210
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    7,715
    Just remember the first job of a politician is to be re-elected.
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  11. #211
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    I think we'll see more of this in the next two years leading up to the presidential election. For now, I think the mid-terms are more about local issues where politicians are asked more about how they will deal with, respond to or otherwise help out their constituencies. I think its much less about the Big Picture stuff (or the GOP would also be talking more about repealing the Health Care legislation, etc.) and more about how well incumbents have served their voters and whether a fresh face could do a better job. But I think these are LOCAL and PERSONAL issues people are worried about now - finding a job, not losing a job, not losing a house, etc.
    I'd argue that, despite the GOP not talking about health care, etc., this election will be half (geographically) what you mentioned and half Tea Party referendum. Which race will be which will largely depend on the individual candidates and their respective opponents' campaigns. Some regions of the country (Texas, South, parts of the Midwest - especially the western/Great Plains portion, parts of the NE) are extremely apt to take it this way, where others (old Rust Belt, West Coast) will be what you talked about.

    Either way, this election, while it may favor the GOP, won't be nearly as one-sided as many, especially on the right, are thinking it will be, and a great deal of why is due to lack of strong, coordinated leadership.

  12. #212
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,966
    How can conservatives argue about cutting the deficit and complain about spending on social programs, when they are so unwilling to cut funding to the defense budget? This is killing me.

    I like this opinion piece as it gives the trouble that conservatives have with being genuinely worried about the economy and just using it as a political point. At least Ron Paul is consistent (albeit bat-sh!t crazy).

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/1...iref=allsearch

    I enjoy that piece because Sarah Palin called Obama's economic policies backasswords. Other than the fact that I always thought it was bassackwords, she is really telling anyone how to run a budget? Is that because she was governor for a year of a state that has a tremendous amount of oil profits and not many citizens? I can only imagine how hard it must be to budget...

    So she is arguing that the government is too big, and that we spend too much on programs... oh but we can't afford to cut spending to national defense. I like it when people contradict themselves in the same sentence.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  13. #213
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    How can conservatives argue about cutting the deficit and complain about spending on social programs, when they are so unwilling to cut funding to the defense budget? This is killing me.
    It's not that difficult to understand, even if you don't agree with it. Conservatives have a political philosophy concerning the proper function of the federal government that must be weighed against their fiscal conservatism, and many more social programs don't fit their political philosophy's role for the federal government than defense programs. Most of it stems from a strict constructionist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and a firm belief in federalism as espoused by the 10th Amendment, specifically, and the original framework arguments that won the general public over when the Constitution was first adopted.

  14. #214
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,966
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    It's not that difficult to understand, even if you don't agree with it. Conservatives have a political philosophy concerning the proper function of the federal government that must be weighed against their fiscal conservatism, and many more social programs don't fit their political philosophy's role for the federal government than defense programs. Most of it stems from a strict constructionist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and a firm belief in federalism as espoused by the 10th Amendment, specifically, and the original framework arguments that won the general public over when the Constitution was first adopted.
    I don't buy that argument. If you had a "strict" interpretation of the constitution, we would not be funding the wars we do today. Not sure how the 10th amendment has anything to do with military spending. This paper (admittedly by a hard left person) explains one argument.

    http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/a...20Spending.pdf

    You can say that this is obviously biased (which it is). But I think some of the points are valid. You cannot argue that this is a good investment, or that somehow the constitution justifies the expenditure. It is a political point, not a rational decision based on the facts or need.

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/c...%20States.html

    Look at the times when we spend more on the military. Do you see a trend?

    I think saying it is a political philosophy is a cheap excuse to say that it is a political point that they try to win. Kind of like the more American than you argument.

    In the end either you support a big government, and the spending it does, or you support a small government and cuts to the programs it funds. You cannot be small government, and support a bloated military. At least not with a clear conscience.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  15. #215
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,677
    There presently seems to be a genuine rift on the conservative side of things concerning defense spending at this time. Some of them understand it. Defense spending will come down.

    Why conservatives REALLY like a bloated defense budget is because it soaks up a lot of fungible resources that could go toward supporting the social services side of the federal budget.

    $12 billion = 1 Aircraft Carrier

    OR

    $12 billion could equal money for NASA, clean energy research, and so on.

    The gop just doesn't want to admit it.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  16. #216
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    I don't buy that argument. If you had a "strict" interpretation of the constitution, we would not be funding the wars we do today. Not sure how the 10th amendment has anything to do with military spending. This paper (admittedly by a hard left person) explains one argument.

    http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/a...20Spending.pdf

    You can say that this is obviously biased (which it is). But I think some of the points are valid. You cannot argue that this is a good investment, or that somehow the constitution justifies the expenditure. It is a political point, not a rational decision based on the facts or need.

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/c...%20States.html

    Look at the times when we spend more on the military. Do you see a trend?

    I think saying it is a political philosophy is a cheap excuse to say that it is a political point that they try to win. Kind of like the more American than you argument.

    In the end either you support a big government, and the spending it does, or you support a small government and cuts to the programs it funds. You cannot be small government, and support a bloated military. At least not with a clear conscience.
    It's a lot more complex than that, though. I am not going to defend the two current wars, or argue whether it's a good investment. That wasn't part of your argument. It is, however, a rational argument based on a political belief system firmly entrenched in originalism and federalism, if not by facts (?) and need (based purely on subjective interpretation). You're right that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with military spending - that was brought up because you initially said you don't understand why conservatives are in favor of cutting social programs but not the defense budget, something a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment supports. Social programs and programs that are not the central roles of the federal (to say nothing of state) government should be cut first, according to this line of thinking.

    That's all I was getting at. I also wasn't arguing. I was just defending (or at minimum pointing out that issues are never--not just rarely--so simplistically black and white). I personally agree with the premise that the defense budget is bloated and should be trimmed responsibly - the latest report issued by the Sustainable Defense Task Force offers some good suggestions for doing so.

    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    Why conservatives REALLY like a bloated defense budget is because it soaks up a lot of fungible resources that could go toward supporting the social services side of the federal budget.

    $12 billion = 1 Aircraft Carrier

    OR

    $12 billion could equal money for NASA, clean energy research, and so on.

    The gop just doesn't want to admit it.
    Conspiracy theory and conjecture based on your own personal biases, and nothing more. It's equivalent to a conservative saying something along the lines that you want to cut defense spending and use diplomatic organizations more to solve disputes, so you in turn want to hand over our foreign relations to the UN. It's wildly presumptive, not true (by exaggeration), and overly simplistic.
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 13 Jul 2010 at 9:32 AM. Reason: double reply

  17. #217
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,966
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    It's a lot more complex than that, though. I am not going to defend the two current wars, or argue whether it's a good investment. That wasn't part of your argument. It is, however, a rational argument based on a political belief system firmly entrenched in originalism and federalism, if not by facts (?) and need (based purely on subjective interpretation). You're right that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with military spending - that was brought up because you initially said you don't understand why conservatives are in favor of cutting social programs but not the defense budget, something a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment supports. Social programs and programs that are not the central roles of the federal (to say nothing of state) government should be cut first, according to this line of thinking.

    That's all I was getting at. I also wasn't arguing. I was just defending (or at minimum pointing out that issues are never--not just rarely--so simplistically black and white). I personally agree with the premise that the defense budget is bloated and should be trimmed responsibly - the latest report issued by the Sustainable Defense Task Force offers some good suggestions for doing so.
    And this is why I bring up these points. I enjoy your views of the political landscape and appreciate your ability to discern argument from discussion.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  18. #218
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    The biggest problem in politics today is "them". Everyone acts irrationally against "them" because "they" are trying to thwart "us" - Duke's latest presumptions illustrate it, as well as several comments in this thread.

    It's something I doubt will change. If people could realize that both sides are "us" and there is no "them", perhaps we could actually have an honest debate. There will still be sides to an issue, sure. And I'm sure there will still be a lot of people still unhappy with the outcomes of said debates and those who are unwilling to budge. But if we can bridge the "us" vs. "them" mentality... aw, hell. I'm just being dumb with Utopian wishful thinking. It won't happen. I shouldn't tease myself.

  19. #219
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Conspiracy theory and conjecture based on your own personal biases, and nothing more. It's equivalent to a conservative saying something along the lines that you want to cut defense spending and use diplomatic organizations more to solve disputes, so you in turn want to hand over our foreign relations to the UN. It's wildly presumptive, not true (by exaggeration), and overly simplistic.
    It's not a conspiracy theory, though I like the thought of that. Its just a theory. It is a much better theory than the gop is trying to raise that obama and bp colluded together to cause the gulf oil disaster in order to pass cap and trade in order to destroy our sovereignty and hand over our foreign relations to the UN.

    NAZI UFO's in a base at the Antarctic? Now THAT is a conspiracy theory!

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    ...... But if we can bridge the "us" vs. "them" mentality... aw, hell. I'm just being dumb with Utopian wishful thinking. It won't happen. I shouldn't tease myself.
    NO NO, Don't stop!

    If you stop there will be no way you will ever manage to institute a budget based on some obscure Austrian economist and overthrow the US Government with the Tea Party Activists and re-institute a return to the halcyon days of a fairy Constitution existing prior to 1861!
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 13 Jul 2010 at 10:03 AM. Reason: double reply
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  20. #220
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    It's not a conspiracy theory, though I like the thought of that. Its just a theory. It is a much better theory than the gop is trying to raise that obama and bp colluded together to cause the gulf oil disaster in order to pass cap and trade in order to destroy our sovereignty and hand over our foreign relations to the UN.
    First I've heard of that, and I'd like to think I'm fairly well-read, politically, in current affairs. Frankly, I'd classify that theory as conspiracy as well, right up there with the Obama birthplace and "Obama's a secret Muslim" crap. I'm sure people believe them. But those people are also conspiracy theorists, even they are folk/populist conspiracy loons instead of the stereotypical conspiracy nutjobs. They're by no means whatsoever official positions, or even part of official discussion, in GOP circles.


    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    NO NO, Don't stop!

    If you stop there will be no way you will ever manage to institute a budget based on some obscure Austrian economist and overthrow the US Government with the Tea Party Activists and re-institute a return to the halcyon days of a fairy Constitution existing prior to 1861!
    I'm also not naive enough to believe that an honest and open debate of the issues as I was wishing for would result in policies that reflect my personal opinions on matters. Although I do appreciate your attempt at humor.

  21. #221
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,185
    (I decided to return to this forvm )

    ^^
    One of the two top Constitutional priorities of the federal government under the Constitution (and *NO*, it is *NOT* a 'living document' - like with the music of the great masters, we play it as written!) is to defend the borders and to carry on foreign affairs and relations.

    Thus, we conservatives/libertarians have no problems at all with paying for a strong military to ensure that security.

    Without that, everything else in it is a moot point.

    The other is to handle relations between the states and between the states and the federal government and then everything else pretty much devolves from those two.

    And under the 10th Amendment, all other affairs of governing not specifically delegated to the federal government are the realm of the states or of the people themselves (as individuals).

    Also, all of the 'rights' spelled out in the Constitution are in fact limitations of the reach of government (ie, right of free speech and assembly, to keep and bear arms, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, compensation for public taking of property, etc) and none of them require the actions of others to be enjoyed.

    Mike

  22. #222
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,966
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    (I decided to return to this forvm )

    ^^
    One of the two top Constitutional priorities of the federal government under the Constitution (and *NO*, it is *NOT* a 'living document' - like with the music of the great masters, we play it as written!) is to defend the borders and to carry on foreign affairs and relations.

    Thus, we conservatives/libertarians have no problems at all with paying for a strong military to ensure that security.

    Without that, everything else in it is a moot point.

    The other is to handle relations between the states and between the states and the federal government and then everything else pretty much devolves from those two.

    And under the 10th Amendment, all other affairs of governing not specifically delegated to the federal government are the realm of the states or of the people themselves (as individuals).

    Also, all of the 'rights' spelled out in the Constitution are in fact limitations of the reach of government (ie, right of free speech and assembly, to keep and bear arms, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, compensation for public taking of property, etc) and none of them require the actions of others to be enjoyed.

    Mike
    So you think that our budget is just enough to "defend" our borders? I think that if that were the case we would be just dealing with our own internal problems and creating a defense that basically defends. No need for offensive weapons. We both know that this isn't the case. We actively go into wars (just or not) to promote our agenda of "freedom", "liberty", and "democracy". I am not arguing that these are not just reasons for a war, just whether or not they are true reasons to start with.

    I strongly disagree with you about the constitution being a living document, but I can understand your point of view.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  23. #223
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    It's not that difficult to understand, even if you don't agree with it. Conservatives have a political philosophy concerning the proper function of the federal government that must be weighed against their fiscal conservatism, and many more social programs don't fit their political philosophy's role for the federal government than defense programs. Most of it stems from a strict constructionist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and a firm belief in federalism as espoused by the 10th Amendment, specifically, and the original framework arguments that won the general public over when the Constitution was first adopted.
    I don't degree that defense/security is a fundamental duty of the Federal government, however, I question the merits of the worldwide spread of our defenders. We could easily eliminate 10% of the defense budget re-appropriate resources and people and still provide top-notch protection and defense of the USA. 10% is over 60 billion dollars and far less than .5% the $20 million that a couple republican congressman are griping about as wasteful stimulus spending.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  24. #224
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,185
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    So you think that our budget is just enough to "defend" our borders? I think that if that were the case we would be just dealing with our own internal problems and creating a defense that basically defends. No need for offensive weapons. We both know that this isn't the case. We actively go into wars (just or not) to promote our agenda of "freedom", "liberty", and "democracy". I am not arguing that these are not just reasons for a war, just whether or not they are true reasons to start with.
    Where did I say that?



    Sad to say it (and those who are the most in favor of a strong military are also, like me, the most hesitant to use it unless it is absolutely necessary - as Theodore Roosevelt once said: "Speak softly and carry a BIG stick". It is the most effective and respected form of diplomacy of all), but part of that 'defending the borders' and ensuring security every now and then does mean having to take preemptive action far away to prevent truly bad guys from wrecking havoc closer in.

    And I *HATE* war! It is messy, it is expensive, it is disruptive, people get hurt, it creates hard feelings, etc. OTOH, I also realize that military action is sometimes the only course that is appropriate for the situation and for that reason, when it is needed must be done in such a way as to *WIN* and *WIN ONLY*. For that it is critical that the military be able to do that. Anything less would be a total and ruinous waste. And yes, a strong military is a real dis-incentive for bad guys to do bad things to us.

    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    I strongly disagree with you about the constitution being a living document, but I can understand your point of view.
    I have never understood that, seeing some judges rule one way when the text of the law and/or Constitution clearly states the direct opposite - and there is virtually zero unambiguous text in the USA's Constitution. And it is one of the World's shortest national Constitutions as measured in number of words, too.



    Parts of some states' Constitutions, as well as many federal, state and local laws, are certainly otherwise and do need clarification.

    Mike

  25. #225
    Cyburbian fringe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Comer, GA
    Posts
    570
    To quote the late professor Howard Zinn, "War brutalizes everyone involved in it."

+ Reply to thread
Page 9 of 184 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 19 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 8:26 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last post: 30 Apr 2013, 2:53 PM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 9:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 1:17 PM