What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[koshergrl]

And I will add...

Was/IS it government's responsibility to take over the charity role private citizens are quite capable of handling on thier own?

Sorry. You're going to lose me if you expect me to count on the good will of others.

Why on earth do you count on anyone other than yourself in the first place?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I will add...

Was/IS it government's responsibility to take over the charity role private citizens are quite capable of handling on thier own?

Sorry. You're going to lose me if you expect me to count on the good will of others.

So you won't count on the good will of others, but you are okay with the government taking property away from others and giving it to you? That's putting an awful lot of faith in a government that you just gave the power to take and do anything it wants to anybody.

Well, the "others" whose good will she doesn't want to count on don't include politicians and bureaucrats, apparently.

 

[Vidi]

And again? Where in the Constitution was it ever written that Government was to take on the role of charity?

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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."

Now Hamilton and Madison argued over what "general welfare " meant. And the debate wasn't really settled until 1936 with the case United States vs Butler which established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

So, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to determine what "General Welfare" means and to spend money promoting it.

Now you tell me where the Constitution supports your assertion that the Government should be involved with "charity"

And General Welfare doesn't mean what it has become.

They were speaking of protecting the Liberty of the Individual and thier right to live thier lives unfettered by Government intrusion.

And who would "they" be?

Certainly not the founding fathers, because the Madison/Hamilton debate over what General Welfare meant was very loud and very public.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation.


As I stated, United States vs Butler ( 1936 ) stated clearly that "General Welfare" is to be determined by the Congress, which means its a fluid, or living term.

Today, the Congress could decide that handing free money to unemployed candlestick makers is in the interest of the general welfare and tomorrow, the could decide that taking that money away is in the interest of the General Welfare, and both are supported constitutionally via US vs Butler.

Therefore, under the law, backed by the Constitution, if the Congress says its in the General Welfare interests to be involved with what you refer to as "charity" then it is.

Period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry. You're going to lose me if you expect me to count on the good will of others.

And again? Where in the Constitution was it ever written that Government was to take on the role of charity?

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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."

Now Hamilton and Madison argued over what "general welfare " meant. And the debate wasn't really settled until 1936 with the case United States vs Butler which established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

So, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to determine what "General Welfare" means and to spend money promoting it.

Now you tell me where the Constitution supports your assertion that the Government should be involved with "charity"

No, you stupid cow. If the Constitution had "given Congress the power to determine the general welfare", it 1) would have added the phrase "as they see fit" at the end of that, and 2) NOT FOLLOWED THAT SENTENCE WITH A WHOLE LIST OF ENUMERATED POWERS TO SPECIFICALLY OUTLINE WHAT "GENERAL WELFARE" WAS.

Perhaps if you read the Constitution - or had someone read it to you - you might be a bit better aware of what it says. What'd you think that whole frigging list of Congressional powers was there for, if the Constitution was giving Congress the power to do whatever the fuck it wanted in the name of "general welfare", hmm? I'd really like for ONE of you half-assed liberals to JUST ONCE answer me that question: what the fuck did you think that list was there for?

And don't waste my time with "the Supreme Court decided". The Supreme Court also once decided that Dred Scott should be returned to his former master and that "separate but equal" was a good idea, if I recall correctly. For once in your life, take your brain out of the shrink wrap, plug it in, and use whatever pitiful powers of reading comprehension you possess to answer the question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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."

Now Hamilton and Madison argued over what "general welfare " meant. And the debate wasn't really settled until 1936 with the case United States vs Butler which established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

So, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to determine what "General Welfare" means and to spend money promoting it.

Now you tell me where the Constitution supports your assertion that the Government should be involved with "charity"

And General Welfare doesn't mean what it has become.

They were speaking of protecting the Liberty of the Individual and thier right to live thier lives unfettered by Government intrusion.

And who would "they" be?

Certainly not the founding fathers, because the Madison/Hamilton debate over what General Welfare meant was very loud and very public.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation.


As I stated, United States vs Butler ( 1936 ) stated clearly that "General Welfare" is to be determined by the Congress, which means its a fluid, or living term.

Today, the Congress could decide that handing free money to unemployed candlestick makers is in the interest of the general welfare and tomorrow, the could decide that taking that money away is in the interest of the General Welfare, and both are supported constitutionally via US vs Butler.

Therefore, under the law, backed by the Constitution, if the Congress says its in the General Welfare interests to be involved with what you refer to as "charity" then it is.

Period.

"They" would indeed mean the Founding Fathers, since - regardless of what debates and arguments they might have had - they put their signatures on the document, certifying that they agreed with it.

There's a big difference between "backed by the Constitution" and "backed by what the Supreme Court is currently declaring the Constitution says". Thank God not everyone in this is a lazy, blind sheep like you who's perfectly willing to say, "Oh, someone in authority says it's so? Okay, it MUST be right, then. I certainly don't need to think for myself or question anything."

 

[Vidi]

And General Welfare doesn't mean what it has become.

They were speaking of protecting the Liberty of the Individual and thier right to live thier lives unfettered by Government intrusion.

And who would "they" be?

Certainly not the founding fathers, because the Madison/Hamilton debate over what General Welfare meant was very loud and very public.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation.


As I stated, United States vs Butler ( 1936 ) stated clearly that "General Welfare" is to be determined by the Congress, which means its a fluid, or living term.

Today, the Congress could decide that handing free money to unemployed candlestick makers is in the interest of the general welfare and tomorrow, the could decide that taking that money away is in the interest of the General Welfare, and both are supported constitutionally via US vs Butler.

Therefore, under the law, backed by the Constitution, if the Congress says its in the General Welfare interests to be involved with what you refer to as "charity" then it is.

Period.

"They" would indeed mean the Founding Fathers, since - regardless of what debates and arguments they might have had - they put their signatures on the document, certifying that they agreed with it.

There's a big difference between "backed by the Constitution" and "backed by what the Supreme Court is currently declaring the Constitution says". Thank God not everyone in this is a lazy, blind sheep like you who's perfectly willing to say, "Oh, someone in authority says it's so? Okay, it MUST be right, then. I certainly don't need to think for myself or question anything."

And here's where you prove yourself an ignorant twit.

As I stated, Madison and Hamilton disagreed on what the term General Welfare meant and what powers it bestowed upon the Congress.

It was not even determined until 1936, which you would know had you bothered to read either of my posts, you piece of regurgitated monkey testicles.

If you don't agreed with the decision of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this country, then pack your bags and take your stupid, uneducated fat ass out of my country, because you clearly have no love for it, penis breath.

 

[regent]

The founders had their say at the convention, and often they disagreed with each other and some refused to even sign the finished document. What they did agree on, is there in the finished document, and to now try and go through their letters, books, diaries, quotes and try to figure out what they would say about issues 200 years later is madness. They wrote the Constituton, it is there in black and white, and our job is to apply it as best we can to our present problems.

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes.

 

[Vidi]

The founders had their say at the convention, and often they disagreed with each other and some refused to even sign the finished document. What they did agree on, is there in the finished document, and to now try and go through their letters, books, diaries, quotes and try to figure out what they would say about issues 200 years later is madness. They wrote the Constituton, it is there in black and white, and our job is to apply it as best we can to our present problems.

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes.

Exactly.

Hence, United States vs Butler

 

[Ropey]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes

The agenda of the leftists is to attach the two (Capital and Social) aspects in a competition with legislating judges a la Roe vs Wade.

Personally I have no frustrations when I'm discussing with Liberals. My issues come from Leftists who are couching themselves as Liberals.

We have a clear line of demarcation between the two in Canada. Social and Capital programs are kept at a distance. America is fighting a leftist agenda in which they have no great experience. Canada has had that fight.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And who would "they" be?

Certainly not the founding fathers, because the Madison/Hamilton debate over what General Welfare meant was very loud and very public.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation.


As I stated, United States vs Butler ( 1936 ) stated clearly that "General Welfare" is to be determined by the Congress, which means its a fluid, or living term.

Today, the Congress could decide that handing free money to unemployed candlestick makers is in the interest of the general welfare and tomorrow, the could decide that taking that money away is in the interest of the General Welfare, and both are supported constitutionally via US vs Butler.

Therefore, under the law, backed by the Constitution, if the Congress says its in the General Welfare interests to be involved with what you refer to as "charity" then it is.

Period.

"They" would indeed mean the Founding Fathers, since - regardless of what debates and arguments they might have had - they put their signatures on the document, certifying that they agreed with it.

There's a big difference between "backed by the Constitution" and "backed by what the Supreme Court is currently declaring the Constitution says". Thank God not everyone in this is a lazy, blind sheep like you who's perfectly willing to say, "Oh, someone in authority says it's so? Okay, it MUST be right, then. I certainly don't need to think for myself or question anything."

And here's where you prove yourself an ignorant twit.

As I stated, Madison and Hamilton disagreed on what the term General Welfare meant and what powers it bestowed upon the Congress.

It was not even determined until 1936, which you would know had you bothered to read either of my posts, you piece of regurgitated monkey testicles.

If you don't agreed with the decision of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this country, then pack your bags and take your stupid, uneducated fat ass out of my country, because you clearly have no love for it, penis breath.

And as I stated, it doesn't matter what disagreements they had. The words are right there.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks the fact that Hamilton disagreed with something means "the Founding Fathers were divided" has just proven HERSELF an ignorant twit, since anyone educated in American history knows just how isolated in his opinions Hamilton was from the other Founding Fathers, and how generally marginalized he was by them for those isolated opinions.

As I further stated, only lazy, blind sheep take the attitude of "someone in authority said it, so it must be true, no need for me to think about it". It doesn't matter what year the Supreme Court decided something. The ACTUAL WORDS of the Constitution are there for you to read, and to think about, if you were capable of it.

If you want to agree with everything anyone in government tells you, without ever questioning it, then pack your bags and get the fuck out of MY country, twat breath, because that sure as hell isn't the spirit this country was founded on, and we sure as hell don't need it here. REAL Americans don't blindly follow, the government or anyone else.

 

[Vidi]

"They" would indeed mean the Founding Fathers, since - regardless of what debates and arguments they might have had - they put their signatures on the document, certifying that they agreed with it.

There's a big difference between "backed by the Constitution" and "backed by what the Supreme Court is currently declaring the Constitution says". Thank God not everyone in this is a lazy, blind sheep like you who's perfectly willing to say, "Oh, someone in authority says it's so? Okay, it MUST be right, then. I certainly don't need to think for myself or question anything."

And here's where you prove yourself an ignorant twit.

As I stated, Madison and Hamilton disagreed on what the term General Welfare meant and what powers it bestowed upon the Congress.

It was not even determined until 1936, which you would know had you bothered to read either of my posts, you piece of regurgitated monkey testicles.

If you don't agreed with the decision of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this country, then pack your bags and take your stupid, uneducated fat ass out of my country, because you clearly have no love for it, penis breath.

And as I stated, it doesn't matter what disagreements they had. The words are right there.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks the fact that Hamilton disagreed with something means "the Founding Fathers were divided" has just proven HERSELF an ignorant twit, since anyone educated in American history knows just how isolated in his opinions Hamilton was from the other Founding Fathers, and how generally marginalized he was by them for those isolated opinions.

As I further stated, only lazy, blind sheep take the attitude of "someone in authority said it, so it must be true, no need for me to think about it". It doesn't matter what year the Supreme Court decided something. The ACTUAL WORDS of the Constitution are there for you to read, and to think about, if you were capable of it.

If you want to agree with everything anyone in government tells you, without ever questioning it, then pack your bags and get the fuck out of MY country, twat breath, because that sure as hell isn't the spirit this country was founded on, and we sure as hell don't need it here. REAL Americans don't blindly follow, the government or anyone else.

once again, the courts decided you are wrong in 1936.

You can debate what YOU think the General Welfare SHOULD mean with Congress, but they were given the power to determine what it means for themselves. You can disagree with what they say, but...

For you to say you KNOW what the intention of the Founding fathers was over 236 years of judges, presidents, congressmen and senators makes you the most arrogant fool on the planet.

Go be a rebel somewhere else, the fish aint biting here, you fraking fascist bitch.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The founders had their say at the convention, and often they disagreed with each other and some refused to even sign the finished document. What they did agree on, is there in the finished document, and to now try and go through their letters, books, diaries, quotes and try to figure out what they would say about issues 200 years later is madness. They wrote the Constituton, it is there in black and white, and our job is to apply it as best we can to our present problems.

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes.

Exactly.

Hence, United States vs Butler

Oh, brilliant logic. "The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says, because the Supreme Court says that it does."

Dear GOD, you get more stupid and less American with every word that issues from your cock-holster.

So tell me, oh master of the one-brain-cell response, if what the Supreme Court says is always right and proper and the way it should be, what does that say for decisions like Dred Scott, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or even Bush v. Gore, which I know all good liberals think was a travesty? Should the people have never questioned any of those decisions, and just left them as they were? Or was it just that one Supreme Court in the 30s that was infallible?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And here's where you prove yourself an ignorant twit.

As I stated, Madison and Hamilton disagreed on what the term General Welfare meant and what powers it bestowed upon the Congress.

It was not even determined until 1936, which you would know had you bothered to read either of my posts, you piece of regurgitated monkey testicles.

If you don't agreed with the decision of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this country, then pack your bags and take your stupid, uneducated fat ass out of my country, because you clearly have no love for it, penis breath.

And as I stated, it doesn't matter what disagreements they had. The words are right there.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks the fact that Hamilton disagreed with something means "the Founding Fathers were divided" has just proven HERSELF an ignorant twit, since anyone educated in American history knows just how isolated in his opinions Hamilton was from the other Founding Fathers, and how generally marginalized he was by them for those isolated opinions.

As I further stated, only lazy, blind sheep take the attitude of "someone in authority said it, so it must be true, no need for me to think about it". It doesn't matter what year the Supreme Court decided something. The ACTUAL WORDS of the Constitution are there for you to read, and to think about, if you were capable of it.

If you want to agree with everything anyone in government tells you, without ever questioning it, then pack your bags and get the fuck out of MY country, twat breath, because that sure as hell isn't the spirit this country was founded on, and we sure as hell don't need it here. REAL Americans don't blindly follow, the government or anyone else.

once again, the courts decided you are wrong in 1936.

You can debate what YOU think the General Welfare SHOULD mean with Congress, but they were given the power to determine what it means for themselves. You can disagree with what they say, but...

For you to say you KNOW what the intention of the Founding fathers was over 236 years of judges, presidents, congressmen and senators makes you the most arrogant fool on the planet.

Go be a rebel somewhere else, the fish aint biting here, you fraking fascist bitch.

Brain Trust, YOU are the one arguing their intentions. I haven't said a word about them. I'M talking about the actual words, which are right there on the fucking sheepskin for anyone literate to read and comprehend for their very own selves. The Constitution says what it says, and only gullible members of the Cult of Government are willing to ignore the evidence of their own eyes in favor of "but someone in authority said it meant something else".

Fascist? Questioning authority - or even rebelling against it - is FASCIST now? Do you even know what "fascist" means, you vacuum-skulled twat muffin? Hey, here's an idea: why don't you go tell George Washington and all the other leaders of the Revolutionary War how "fascistic" and Unamerican rebelling is, you goddamned moron. And then have whoever turned the computer on for you take you back to your room and make sure you don't have access to any sharp implements.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And here's where you prove yourself an ignorant twit.

As I stated, Madison and Hamilton disagreed on what the term General Welfare meant and what powers it bestowed upon the Congress.

It was not even determined until 1936, which you would know had you bothered to read either of my posts, you piece of regurgitated monkey testicles.

If you don't agreed with the decision of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this country, then pack your bags and take your stupid, uneducated fat ass out of my country, because you clearly have no love for it, penis breath.

And as I stated, it doesn't matter what disagreements they had. The words are right there.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks the fact that Hamilton disagreed with something means "the Founding Fathers were divided" has just proven HERSELF an ignorant twit, since anyone educated in American history knows just how isolated in his opinions Hamilton was from the other Founding Fathers, and how generally marginalized he was by them for those isolated opinions.

As I further stated, only lazy, blind sheep take the attitude of "someone in authority said it, so it must be true, no need for me to think about it". It doesn't matter what year the Supreme Court decided something. The ACTUAL WORDS of the Constitution are there for you to read, and to think about, if you were capable of it.

If you want to agree with everything anyone in government tells you, without ever questioning it, then pack your bags and get the fuck out of MY country, twat breath, because that sure as hell isn't the spirit this country was founded on, and we sure as hell don't need it here. REAL Americans don't blindly follow, the government or anyone else.

once again, the courts decided you are wrong in 1936.

Once again, the courts also decided that slavery and Jim Crow were spiffy ideas, and absolutely in keeping with the Constitution. Thank God the rest of the country at both those times wasn't made up of brain-dead sheep like you, or blacks would still be picking cotton and bowing and scraping to "Massa".

You can debate what YOU think the General Welfare SHOULD mean with Congress, but they were given the power to determine what it means for themselves. You can disagree with what they say, but...

I'm not debating what I think it means, you ignorant slut. I'm STATING what the Constitution SAYS, because I can READ and COMPREHEND all by my own self. It's one of those perks one acquires from being EDUCATED. You should try it sometime.

For you to say you KNOW what the intention of the Founding fathers was over 236 years of judges, presidents, congressmen and senators makes you the most arrogant fool on the planet.

Go be a rebel somewhere else, the fish aint biting here, you fraking fascist bitch.

Go be a mindless follower someone else, you fucking moron, because America doesn't work that way, and never has.

"Fascist". I can't decide if you're really that goddamned retarded, or if you just enjoy being thought to be for some reason.

 

[Vidi]

Cec,
EDIT: Vidi, We do not allow attack via family on this board. We require ALL posters to leave the other guys Mamma out of the insults - no exceptions.


And because you have the mental capacity of a grade schooler, here's how it's described to third graders:

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.

Are you as smart as a third grader?

Yeah didn't this so.

ETA:

And you, my born of the leftovers of santorum, a fascist is exactly what you are. Youve determined that despite the fact that weve had 236 years of history, only YOU can determine what is right and wrong in our system of government. Only YOU know whats best for the rest of us peons. That makes you a big intrudusive government fascist.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, brilliant logic. "The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says, because the Supreme Court says that it does."

Dear GOD, you get more stupid and less American with every word that issues from your cock-holster.

So tell me, oh master of the one-brain-cell response, if what the Supreme Court says is always right and proper and the way it should be, what does that say for decisions like Dred Scott, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or even Bush v. Gore, which I know all good liberals think was a travesty? Should the people have never questioned any of those decisions, and just left them as they were? Or was it just that one Supreme Court in the 30s that was infallible?

Vidi would make a perfect concentration camp guard. Whatever the Furher says is truth. No need to think for yourself.

I genuinely experience despair when I observe the kind of servile mindless trolls that infest this country.

 

[Vidi]

Oh, brilliant logic. "The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says, because the Supreme Court says that it does."

Dear GOD, you get more stupid and less American with every word that issues from your cock-holster.

So tell me, oh master of the one-brain-cell response, if what the Supreme Court says is always right and proper and the way it should be, what does that say for decisions like Dred Scott, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or even Bush v. Gore, which I know all good liberals think was a travesty? Should the people have never questioned any of those decisions, and just left them as they were? Or was it just that one Supreme Court in the 30s that was infallible?

Vidi would make a perfect concentration camp guard. Whatever the Furher says is truth. No need to think for yourself.

I genuinely experience despair when I observe the kind of servile mindless trolls that infest this country.

Wow, citing the law and its interpetations of facsist?

and thats what makes arguing with liberals so frustrating....we actually have facts and figures to back themselves up as opposed to blind partisan rhetoric spoon fed to them by the FauxNews masters.

You are obviously a slave. Keep enjoying your servitude, serfboy.

ETA:

You know whats funny...United States vs Butler which recognized that Congress has this power, stuck down parts of FDR's New Deal....in other words, it was a CONSERVATIVE court ( dominated by Hoover, Taft and Harding nominees )that said this. HAHAHAHAHAH if only you people BOTHERED to even understand your own partys history.

 

[Foxfyre]

How is "giving away the people money" defined?

Obviously there HAS to be government contractors to service the military, build roads and bridges, etc. so what you're saying is too vague and generalized to be an effective strategy.

Issuing contracts for necessary services is not charity or benevolence or cronyism. The easiest way to accomplish that is to eliminate all unnecessary regulation on government contracts such as a requirement that the contract go only to union shops or that the contractor must pay union wages, etc. Then widely advertise the contracts that will be let, be sure all open contracts are posted in one easily located and accessible place, and then issue the contract to the lowest qualified bidder. And assign qualified oversight to ensure that the contractor meets all specifications of the contract as agreed, no kickbacks occur, and all the money is accounted for. Any department head or other bureaucrat caught allowing kickbacks or intentionally sloppy oversight should be fired or even prosecuted, fined, and/or jailed.

As for necessary permanent installations--military bases, etc.--these should be distributed equitably as much as possible throughout the 50 states using per capita criteria to determine equitability.

Giving away the people's money is giving it to a particular person, group, entity, class, or whatever who did nothing to earn it and with no expectation or requirement that they do anything to earn it.

There is absolutely nothing vague or generalizxed about that concept for anybody of normal intelligence and education.

Yes yes you're a genius

First off though you statement has merit, Military bases, etc. aren't needed in every state. Trying to spread enough around to every state will either dilute the benefit to the point of meaninglessness or cost too much to be feasible even based on the capita criteria you mentioned.

Second, the requirement as I understand it is not " union wages" but competitive wages for the area. This allows local contractors to compete with out of state contractors who can recruit in lower income areas ( not poor but placed where it is cheaper to live so you get paid less too )

Lastly, I agree that taking money from hard working people and handing it freely over to those who didn't work for it is wrong. Which is why I am against allowing corporations to externalize their costs onto the taxpayer and collect subsidies and tax breaks for doing so.

I believe there are probably enough government installations to allocate them to all 50 states. And I am sick to death with government spreading anything around just for the sake of spreading it. But neither should all the government contracts and jobs go to one favored state and little to none go to another.

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).
The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The sad thing is that there is no source we can go to that tells us exactly where all the U.S. military installations are. But there are plenty to spread around among the 50 states as is evident at this site:
State-by-State Listing of Major U.S. Military Bases

And that is just the Defense Department.

The point is, we don't want politicians buying votes with pork any more than we want politicians buying votes with benevolence, no matter how well intended.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cec,

If your grandparents hadn't been brother and sister and your grandfather your father, you might have the mental capacity to understand that the Constitution is constantly being interpreted, and it is the Supreme Courts ENTIRE FUCKING PURPOSE.


And because you have the mental capacity of a grade schooler, here's how it's described to third graders:

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.

Are you as smart as a third grader?

Yeah didn't this so.

ETA:

And you, my born of the leftovers of santorum, a fascist is exactly what you are. Youve determined that despite the fact that weve had 236 years of history, only YOU can determine what is right and wrong in our system of government. Only YOU know whats best for the rest of us peons. That makes you a big intrudusive government fascist.

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you're illiterate.

 

[Vidi]

Cec,

If your grandparents hadn't been brother and sister and your grandfather your father, you might have the mental capacity to understand that the Constitution is constantly being interpreted, and it is the Supreme Courts ENTIRE FUCKING PURPOSE.


And because you have the mental capacity of a grade schooler, here's how it's described to third graders:

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.

Are you as smart as a third grader?

Yeah didn't this so.

ETA:

And you, my born of the leftovers of santorum, a fascist is exactly what you are. Youve determined that despite the fact that weve had 236 years of history, only YOU can determine what is right and wrong in our system of government. Only YOU know whats best for the rest of us peons. That makes you a big intrudusive government fascist.

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you're illiterate.

History has proven you a dumdass. Now get back under your bridge.