#37042: — 08/23  at  03:56 AM
Heh.

#37045: Mikko Sandt — 08/23  at  06:30 AM
Just too bad that Republicand in increasing amounts have begun to believe that you have to support ID in order to be a good Republican. And just too bad that the right is moving to the left with increased government spending and government control.

#37046: — 08/23  at  06:47 AM
Feisty,

I have a law degree. I took Con Law I. FYI, the Preamble is considered precatory language. Non enforeceble. High sounding words. Nice talk.

Articles I and II actually discuss warmaking powers. The Congress has the power to declare war. The president is the Commander in Chief. In the last 50 years Congress has let warmaking authority devolve to the president. But that is another subject.

You are correct to say that domestic defence is the first goal of the government. But what does that have to do with the question I posed? Wars take money, even premptive wars based upon misinformation.

FWIW, I do not believe in subsidizing agricluture. But it is not in anyway proscribed by the Constitution. Comerce clause lawmaking authority allows such subsidies, whoever ill-guided, they may be.

#37047: Matt McIrvin — 08/23  at  06:48 AM
Even the conservative PZ Myers now agrees with everything I say. Why can't the Right admit the truth?

#37051: ekzept — 08/23  at  07:36 AM

Provide for the ensure domestic tranquility, common defense, ensure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity? Well, that very well sounds like a document meant to ensure that we don't get KILLED BY TERRORISTS OR ANYONE ELSE WHO IS ACTIVELY SEEKING TO KILL US. It ain't very tranquil here when terrorists are flying airplanes into our tallest buildings, unable to be stopped because our money went to something less important than intelligence or defense.

i would and have argued despite the fears and despite their claims, terrorists do not want to kill us, they want to get on CNN and make us afraid. they don't act like they want to kill us, irrespective of what they say.

Nowhere does our Constitution say things like Congress shall "subsidize Industry X to make the people in Industry X more likely to vote for a candidate" or stuff of that nature. All I want are candidates who realize the primary goal of the Federal govt. is to make sure we don't all die...cuz I could care less if agriculture is being adequately subsidized if my city gets dessimated in a terror attack because people said, "Eh. We don't need to worry about those silly terrorists."

as a matter of fact, most of the funds spent on providing for the common defense do not go for the war on terror or providing troops in the field the very best, they arguably go for subsidizing the defense industry to maintain highly expensive holdovers from a Cold War that's done and no longer has any relevance. merely maintaining the existing nuclear stockpile is an expensive proposition and BushCo wants to build nuclear "bunker busters" that are a waste. how is a stealth bomber going to stop someone from crashing a plane into a building?

#37052: Feisty — 08/23  at  07:38 AM
This comment system really sucks because when I want to click back to what I said previously on page #1, I lose what I wrote on page #2 here.

Anyway, Mr. Quantum, I did answer your question. You asked me to justify spending money in Iraq when I was for reasonable taxes. I told you that in order to preserve Liberty and peace for us and our posterity, kickin' ass and taking names is necessary in this case. Not only is it necessary, it's the duty of the government. Our elected officials, based on intelligence, determined that Saddam's Iraq posed a threat to our country. That means, all or most elected officials thought Iraq posed a threat. Therefore, it is our duty to allocate funds to stomp out this threat before they are in a position to kill us.

This is the simple answer because I really don't want to go into doctoral thesis mode on why democracy in Iraq will likely help to stabilize an unstable region in the longterm, thereby causing us to be safer in the longterm as well (as well as the short term, of course!). If you don't think having a stable democracy in a middle eastern country won't help everyone everywhere....then you and I are done debating.

#37053: Feisty — 08/23  at  07:45 AM
i would and have argued despite the fears and despite their claims, terrorists do not want to kill us, they want to get on CNN and make us afraid. they don't act like they want to kill us, irrespective of what they say.

Nah they just behead Westerners and and run planes into buildings to get on CNN. The fact that thousands of people have been killed by al-Quaida alone is incidental and irrelevant to the discussion...cuz it was all an accident. You're an American, right? Sheesh.

Wow. Your ignorance in your commenting is obvious. I think any reasonable person can see that a military's job isn't only to "stop airplanes from going into buildings." Stealth bombers are, you know, stealthy...undetectable to radar...So if we want to BOMB something, we can do it without getting ourselves up and killed. Maybe we should Red Barron fight the bad guys, eh? Or shoot BB guns or something? Or else we could just have the best technology around so that when we want to do it, we do it with the fewest casualities and the greatest effectiveness.

#37065: Alon Levy — 08/23  at  08:19 AM
Feisty, I don't think Iraq and terrorism are really relevant to this thread's topic... but if you want to debate it here, I'd be more than happy. Let me just say that for all the contempt I have for pro-Americans, especially foreign policy neo-conservatives, I think they are supremely better than creationists and other religious nuts.

#37069: ekzept — 08/23  at  08:31 AM

... on why democracy in Iraq will likely help to stabilize an unstable region in the longterm, thereby causing us to be safer in the longterm as well...

will an Islamic constitution in Iraq stabilize the region? that's what it looks like we're gonna get, if they get any constitution at all

Nah they just behead Westerners and and run planes into buildings to get on CNN. The fact that thousands of people have been killed by al-Quaida alone is incidental and irrelevant to the discussion...cuz it was all an accident. You're an American, right? Sheesh.

my point is that if they were really serious about simply killing Americans, there are far more effective ways of doing it than the program they have undertaken. they want the white hot spotlight. despite their claims, they don't want lots of Americans in body bags. the effective way of doing that is sending suicide bombers with quite conventional weapons to crowded malls, large weddings, and big sports events in Peoria and such places. but, no, you don't see that.

#37070: ekzept — 08/23  at  08:35 AM

Or else we could just have the best technology around so that when we want to do it, we do it with the fewest casualities and the greatest effectiveness.

i would argue that stuff like the stealth bombers is not the "best technology around" because it's being used for something quite different than it was designed and is not cost effective. that is exactly my point: if you really want to counter an enemy, you want to get as much out of every dollar spent you can, and not sideline eighty cents on the dollar for other things.

So if we want to BOMB something, we can do it without getting ourselves up and killed.

yeah, like a Chinese embassy we thought was a Serbian headquarters. that was stealth, too.

#37078: — 08/23  at  09:05 AM
"Surely there has to be some gene for this aggressive, oppressive, brain-numbing irrationality?"

Nope, it's a choice. Rather than giving into to their pernicious agenda and their demands for special rights, we should simply re-educate them (but lovingly) until they accept Darwin's plan for them and become ex-conservatives.

#37085: — 08/23  at  09:34 AM

Let me just say that for all the contempt I have for pro-Americans, especially foreign policy neo-conservatives, I think they are supremely better than creationists and other religious nuts.

Yes, but are they not (increasingly) becoming one and the same?

#37174: — 08/23  at  03:47 PM
Feisty wrote:

Nah they just behead Westerners and and run planes into buildings to get on CNN. The fact that thousands of people have been killed by al-Quaida alone is incidental and irrelevant to the discussion...cuz it was all an accident. You're an American, right? Sheesh.

If "terrorists" want to kill people, they'll systematically begin dropping bombs over major areas, populated by high concentrations of people, for the purposes of murder. This means schools, airports, malls, or a few nuclear payloads (which are available to many terrorist fronts) on several cities. Instead, they declare a fatwah, strike a big iconic target, and threaten to do it again unless something something happens. It's that "unless" but, the proverbial "if", that defines terrorists as not out there to deprive you of your liberty, but to seek, in however immoral or erroneous manner they have chosen, to protect theirs.

The beheadings that were so publicized are similar to other publicized executions which we've not talked about. That these were of American invaders (and let's use the dictionary, since WE invaded THEIR country, not the other way around, so WE are the insurgents, not they) taken as prisoners of war or even foreign publicists taken as representative of the invaders (such as journalists).

As of now, we have killed far more people on our actions then they have, and we will continue to do so, seemingly without end, as long as we can find divine righteousness to guide our holy presidents. Which is what they say. Imagine that.

As for being an American, yes, I am. And I will fight for the rights of my people to be free, as a patriot. If this means defying the president in his immoral revenge scheme to profit from oil, then so be it. If this is to prevent idiots from turning our schools into religious indoctrination camps, then so be it. But when my country is invading other countries it had no business being in (hell, they had perfect reasonable cause to do this in the 90's when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but we pulled our butts out, and as far as that went we should have stopped). Using "terrorists" and "evildoers" as the predication for invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, ignoring the problems growing in Afganistan now because of our actions (again). The same religious bigots in Washington are heading their same assinine ideals into the homeland in an attempt to curb our freedoms while at the same time decrying the actions of others to suppress us or others?! What hypocrisy! And Feisty, you can't even see it?!

#37179: Feisty — 08/23  at  04:11 PM
Wow. You people's views are shocking. Especially Alon, who doesn't realize freedom is the #1 reason our lovely country here can even learn science and research it. You don't see a lot of nanotechnology being researched in Cuba, do ya? The fact that our country isn't regularly being dessimated by war like the Sudan or Nigeria is quite pertinent to everything. That's why we're the world's only Superpower. We're educated, we're powerful, and we are free.

You're literally the first people ever whom I've heard try to convince someone that terrorists don't really want to kill anyone. I'm sure in terrorist training camps they don't shout, "Let's just irritate them a bit and get on TV!" Yes, there are loads of people looking to kill westerners. That's just a fact, K?

Also, beheading Western contractors and soldiers isn't part of the Geneva conventions. Even at war, no one is allowed to behead the enemy. You're supposed to capture them and place them in a jail in humane conditions, not just chop off their heads at random. Once again, ignorance.

In case you were curious, the reason our buildings and nuclear plants aren't bombed are because--get this--we're stopping terror cells here in the this country and abroad. That's what this military and the CIA and FBI thingies is for.

Makin' the connection here, people? Fight terror over there, no terror here. We can research things, go to work, raise our family how we want, and learn stuff without fearing for our lives as the Iraqis did for the entire duration of Saddam's dictatorship.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Darwinist too, so you need not introduce that "Republicans are stupid creationists" stuff in here when referring to me. Most Republicans are moderates like me.

#37203: — 08/23  at  07:25 PM
Thank you to all on the list who discredited the Feisty Republican Whore and her party line talking point regurgitations. After reading her posts I recalled an Arab proverb that proved quite instructive and I wish I had recalled before addressing her first gurgling.

"When dogs bark, do not bark back." Wise, those Arabs.

#37236: — 08/23  at  10:13 PM
Hey, maybe my tone was rotten, but we're all Darwinists! Can't we get along?!

Actually, I'm not a Darwinist, any more than Hawking is a Newtonist or C. Everett Koop was a Pasteurist. Darwinist and Darwinism are conventional names for small subsets of ideology, and do not apply to those who view evolution as scientific, for which the label "scientist" is most fitting. The rest are strawmen.