Pick Ryan and blame the loss on Conservative GOPs

[Archbob]

Depends on if you favor strict or loose interpretation of the constitution. We've been doing loose ever since the early days of the republic.

 

[Leoreth]

And yet defense spending is actually Constitutional. Can you point to me where in the Constitution it says the Federal government can spend money on education? I certainly cannot find it, which means by definition it is reserved to the State and people and forbidden to the Feds. NEXT!

We conclude that literal interpretation of the constitution sucks. NEXT!

 

[Antilogic]

Well, high opposition numbers equal higher voter turn out for the other party.

That being said... I've been looking into Ryan more. I can't support him. I can't. I tried, because I like Romney, but he lost me. I realize I should actually realize that VP choice is often to please some weirdo block who thinks the VP sets policy... but...

I even considered voting for Obama today. I feel ashamed.

I think I'll just take the time off work and get drunk to lament the situation... no vote from the Kochman.

Yes, but you just said earlier his disapproval ratings were similar to Carter's. All else being equal, if both guys have a 50% disapproval rating, but Carter has 30% approval and 20% ambivalent, and Obama has 45% approval and 5% ambivalent, then Obama has an advantage over Carter. He has a larger donor base and more campaign worker volunteers.

I absolutely love this phrase. It's probably my favorite export from the SA forums.

I've gotta stop being cheap/lazy and make an actual account there someday.

EDIT: At least I'm pretty sure it's a SA thing. Perhaps it comes from somewhere else and is just really common on SA.

What does it mean, for the uninitiated?

 

[Patroklos]

Yeah, actually you did say that:

Read it again. You were criticizing her for being compelled to pay into the system and receiving the less valuable benefit while criticizing the system itself. I pointed out that what you were asking her to do was forfeit all the money she paid in, at which point you said it was only 10%.

Well, if it is only 10%, why won't you forfeit the same amount?

Like JollyRoger I find it remarkable that you seem to think that taxpayers are getting a good deal through defense spending. And I don't think you're doing us a favor by your 'service'. No thank you very much. It's a choice you made - you weren't drafted. You'll get no sympathy from me on that account.

I could care less what you think and have no need for you sympathy, I don't validate myself through your approval. Facts are facts, I am paid for a service I provide, and I get paid under market value for it. I am okay with that, as money is not the sole reason I do my job.

Dollars spent on the military are an inefficient way for government to spend our money:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/defense-spending-job-loss/

If there were not threats, perhaps. There are, thus you are wrong. And your link does not support your position.

Education and infrastructure spending is a far better value, and makes our country a better place to live and work. Defense spending - at least above a certain minimum - doesn't.

And I presume that certain minimum is whatever you want to to be, eh? I disagree, where does that leave us?

But your jealous rant is all for naught, I am all for reducing military spending because unlike most (including you) I have no problem sacrificing some of my sacred cows if it helps the greater good. It has to do with not being wrapped up in my own personal well being at the expense of everything else.

 

[JollyRoger]

@VR - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

I get paid under market value for it.

If you are willing to work for the compensation provided, it would seem to be at least market value

 

[bhsup]

Depends on if you favor strict or loose interpretation of the constitution. We've been doing loose ever since the early days of the republic.

You mean the early days when Presidents vetoed road building bills because they were unconstitutional since the Constitution didn't say the feds could build roads?

 

[Leoreth]

And I presume that certain minimum is whatever you want to to be, eh? I disagree, where does that leave us?

I suppose the minimum should be what's necessary to defend yourself.

But your jealous rant is all for naught, I am all for reducing military spending because unlike most (including you) I have no problem sacrificing some of my sacred cows if it helps the greater good. It has to do with not being wrapped up in my own personal well being at the expense of everything else.

His point was that your sacred cows are a lot less sacred than other cows, though.

 

[Cutlass]

And yet defense spending is actually Constitutional. Can you point to me where in the Constitution it says the Federal government can spend money on education? I certainly cannot find it, which means by definition it is reserved to the State and people and forbidden to the Feds. NEXT!

George Washington would disagree with you.

 

[Patroklos]

@VR - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Your problem Jolly, is that is a preamble. The rest of that article specifically delineates what general welfare means.

We understand its convenient for you to ignore portions of the Constitution you don't like. You are not alone though, Supreme Court Justices have been doing it for centuries. Lawyers, the whole lot of you

If you are willing to work for the compensation provided, it would seem to be at least market value

I don't work Jolly, I serve.

 

[Archbob]

You mean the early days when Presidents vetoed road building bills because they were unconstitutional since the Constitution didn't say the feds could build roads?

Jefferson first stretched the constitution when he purchased Louisiana territory and our presidents have been loosely interpreting it ever since.

 

[Dachs]

What does it mean, for the uninitiated?

[Screw] You, Got Mine

 

[JollyRoger]

Your problem Jolly, is that is a preamble. The rest of that article specifically delineates what general welfare means.

We understand its convenient for you to ignore portions of the Constitution you don't like. You are not alone though, Supreme Court Justices have been doing it for centuries. Lawyers, the whole lot of you .

Yep - there is also the necessary and proper clause.

I don't work Jolly, I serve.

So in addition to all the military golf courses, we are paying for tennis courts too?

 

[Antilogic]

[Screw] You, Got Mine

I figured that or [screw] Your Grand Mother, given the recent ads and a few minutes on Google. This thread pops up first, though.

 

[WindFish]

EDIT: At least I'm pretty sure it's a SA thing. Perhaps it comes from somewhere else and is just really common on SA.

Its really common on SA but I'm sure its been around for a while.

 

[Patroklos]

I suppose the minimum should be what's necessary to defend yourself.

Which is a matter of opinion.

His point was that your sacred cows are a lot less sacred than other cows, though.

According to him, which is a useless measure. When speaking of sacred cows and arguing in good faith you have to assume everyone's sacred cows are just as important to them as yours are to you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

We could hire Indian mercenaries for a fraction of what we currently pay military personnel. And they probably wouldn't even spit on their victims or kill fishermen without firing warning shots.

 

[Phrossack]

We could hire Indian mercenaries for a fraction of what we currently pay military personnel. And they probably wouldn't even spit on their victims or kill fishermen without firing warning shots.

Mercenaries, like soldiers, or any other group of people for that matter, are a mixed bunch. Blackwater would do, and sometimes has done, such things, while Executive Outcomes fought off the nastiest "people" imaginable and saved thousands of people until the UN forced them to leave for being mercenaries. Because, ya know, all mercenaries are bloodthirsty monsters. Pay varies wildly, ranging from hundreds of thousands to nothing. Soldiers often get paid less than mercs (but do receive benefits) and are probably more accountable and loyal.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And yet defense spending is actually Constitutional. Can you point to me where in the Constitution it says the Federal government can spend money on education? I certainly cannot find it, which means by definition it is reserved to the State and people and forbidden to the Feds. NEXT!

Actually a good deal of it is unconstitutional. They have the power to

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Strictly speaking, the Air Force and Marine corps are unconsitutional, and most of the R&D spending is very unconstitutional. It says they can provide and maintain a navy, not that they can improve upon it.

 

[bhsup]

The Marine Corps are part of the Navy, but you may have some ground as far as the air force is concerned.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And R&D. Says nothing about how Congress is allowed to give 66 billion dollars to people to develop a more efficient flying contraption.