The Glade 4.0

Fair enough... 3 of your pet social arguments that get undermined by the article.

What the **** is a "green energy economy"? Who said anything about not shifting to sustainable energy. Nuclear energy is highly sustainable; green types just don't like it. It's also quite clean. We don't need to stay ahead in any imaginary "green energy economy" that just defines "green" as "energy environmentalists like"



You seem to have missed your first article where our Arizona firm is the leading supplier of them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Catch up.





You seem to continue to ignore the NYT articles that support my position. And frankly, your cherry picking is showing again.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I'm not going to catch up with liberal fantasies.



You seem to ignore that it doesn't support your position.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

"Ever" is too strong.

"For prolonged durations" would better fit there.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No, because nothing you just said demonstrates anything about basic economic principles. All you did was say what your opinion is (based on what you want to happen, moreover, rather than making a case for it based on legitmate reasoning) and say it in a way that sounds technical.

You may say "pwnd" if you want, but it's in your own face and mostly because you suggested you did something "pwnworthy"

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Protecting our "interests" is not a role for the US military.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes it is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

lol.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No it is not. I understand you've been repeatedly conditioned to believe it is but there is no Constitutional backing for having a base in Germany, Japan, SK, or SA or anywhere else outside our borders.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I understand you think it makes your argument stronger to tell people they've been "conditioned" but there's plenty of backing. The government can maintain a military. How it goes about doing so, including basing it outside this country, is not something the Constitution concerns itself with.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It doesn't make my argument its simply a fact. You've been conditioned.

We were never meant to have a standing Army DE and you know this. Our military is far to large to be sustained by the productivity of our nation and is much larger than we need. An Army should only ever be a defensive force. We have no just reason to be in another nation at a time of peace even with their invitation because our standing Army should not exist to occupy any foreign land.

It is harmful to our economy, foreign relations, and safety. It drains precious resources on non-productive activity that only forces us to rely on exploitative economic tyranny of our and other's citizens.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This incredibly arrogant statement speaks volumes about the spirit of progressivism.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

This thread is now about Salma Hayek.



Discuss.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I look at that pictures.. and i think... boobies >.<

Which proves boobies > economics.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

No Elmo, I haven't been conditioned. This is something you like to tell yourself so you can feel like you've got some special understanding the rest of us don't but it's just nonsense.



None of this is true. Our military is just barely at an adequate size for our country and can easily be sustained. It only appears expensive because money that should be going to the military is going to wasteful social programs. We really should have a larger Navy, in particular.

The Army should never be restricted to being a defensive force, nor is there any reason whatsoever we should never occupy foriegn nations.

It also doesn't matter what we were "meant" to have. The Founder's fear of standing armies was silly, nonsensical, doesn't fit with modern times anyhow, and in any case, is irrelevant. What they "meant" to happen was just their personal ideas.



In other words, it violates your ideals.

It is not harmful to our economy, foriegn relations, or safety in any way. In fact, we harm it far more by cutting military spending as a panacea for funding problems. There is no "economic tyranny" that's just you saying "I don't like paying taxes".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Its something I tell myself for your sake actually. You're too smart to not come to this conclusion without having been conditioned or perhaps some deep seated biological need for authority.


"The Founder's fear of standing armies was silly, nonsensical, doesn't fit with modern times anyhow"

Right, in modern times armies have never backed a single leader and comitted atrocities agaisnt their own people. You and I know neither of us could list all the nations and times this has happened. Why do you state that which you know is false?

"It is not harmful to our economy, foriegn relations, or safety in any way."

Any way?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson

I am sure you've read both before though so again I ask - why do you state things which you know are false?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The Founders' opinions of how things should be run in the 21st century is completely irrelevant. The Constitution does not forbid a standing army, so what the Founders may or may not have wanted doesn't matter. Even if it did forbid it, we'd need to amend that **** real fast because you can't survive in the 21st century without a standing army. While I have criticisms about military spending, (namely super-expensive stealth fighters/bombers when we're fighting insurgents and terrorists against which the stealth part is completely irrelevant) suggesting we should abandon having a standing army is just ridiculous.

This actually betrays a lack of understanding of the constitution. The constitution explicitly grants to the fed the only powers that it has. If the constitution does not directly provide for the fed to keep a standing army, then it is by default forbidden.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

In other words, you think your conclusion is the only one any right-thinking person could come to without "conditioning". It's simply zealotry.



Because if you don't have a standing army, someone else will come in and do the same thing. The fact that some armies have engaged in military coups doesn't change this; that's in a large part a climate of those militaries that doesn't exist in ours. The only countries that can get away with not having a military are essentially barren rocks in the ocean with precious few resources, and in remote locales, or are otherwise too small to effectively defend themselve in the first place.



Because A) the simple fact that we have enemies is not evidence that the military harms our foriegn relations, and B) neither is the argument that we've employed it in ways others don't like.

What you're really claiming is that our policies may have harmed those things, so no, I don't "know it to be false".

Overall, we benefit in all of those areas from having a powerful military. In all of those areas we'd be worse off without it because we'd have been conquered piece by piece long ago once we moved past the point where assembling a militia had any hope of defending the country. We wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Both of those things you cited..

Well, where is Bin Laden now? So he's pissed at us? Well, guesss what happened to his sponsors and protectors in the Taliban. They're holed up in Pakistan trying to figure a way to get their country back. All he can do these days is inspire incompetants to go try to blow up a plane with their shoes and underwear.

South America? Aside from the fact that most of what you're talking about was in relation to keeping the Communists from taking over those countries and doing far worse, they learned to play ball. Do we have major problems wih South America these days? No? Just one blowhard in Venezuela making desperate claims about how our secret weapons cause earthquakes.

I'm not seeing any harm there. The point of foriegn relations is to secure benefits for your own country, not to make everyone like you.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, it doesn't betray a lack of understanding at all, because the Constitution specifically allows an Army. It only limits its funding to periods of 2 years (unlike the Navy which can be funded indefinitely). There are no other limitations on the power to maintain an Army.

If a power is granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, then any limitation must be explicitly stated or it doesn't exist.

Generally speaking, yes, to have a power it must be granted, but in this case the power is already granted and Xeq is referring to the absence of a particular limitation on that power.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Here's the exact language just for clarification:



Note while an Army and Navy are fundamentally different (and I believe the Coast Guard is included), there are specific language pertaining to both. The Marines and Air Force could probably be considered constiuents of both respectively, since they offer special support and roles to both, but I'm not real familiar with Constitutional history concerning them.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The Marine Corps is part of the Navy.

The Coast Guard is essentially a maritime police force that can become part of the Navy; it falls under the power "to enforce laws"

The Air Force started out as part of the Army. It was split off in 1947 to be a separate service, but essentially it's an Army that fights in the air. Obviously the founders didn't address it specifically since there was no such thing at the time, but its really just an evolution of the Army. It's the same sort of thing as the 2nd Ammendment; "arms" doesn't mean just muskets any more, and "army" no longer just means "land forces".

Really, it's just a change in command structure, which the Constitution doesn't perscribe in the first place. As long as the Air Force is not funded for periods over 2 years, it's just an Army with a name that reflects its ariel nature.

As a matter of fact since we appropriate defense money yearly, we're exceeding compliance with the Constitution by 100% in regards to the Army and Air Force.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █