![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
So Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
no subject
I would argue that your statements that we needed 6 Divisions more in Afghanistan are in fact probably incorrect. History has shown that going into Afghanistan "heavy" does not work. COIN works, on a smaller level and on a smaller function by getting the locals to do the work, especially in the rarified environment that is Afghanistan. They best way to get them all resistant to US forces is to make the US forces look like the heavy handed Soviet forces. You want to discuss what is and isn't good about operations in Afghanistan, then lets do so, but frankly, all you've said is that it's bad we should pull out and conjoined the operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq as being Jingoism (along with funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the State department and other agencies) so you still look like a panty waisted pinko useful idiot to me. Don't like the characterization, then re-appraise your stance on ALL US military forces PAST and PRESENT being Jingoist forces.
It LEGALLY something the government can do. The Constitution does not have any opinion at all on government entitlements. I would agree in principal that the government shouldn't be feeding housing and clothing those characterized as lazy free-riders, but that is not the truth of the matter.
Cite the article section and paragraph. You argue that it's legal. Cite the section. I asked you to before, you have not done so. Cite the damn law which grants congress the authorization to take funds from me and give it to some woman in New Orleans who sits in an apartment in front of a TV larger than my car but she still complains about the government not doing enough for HER.
When we look at entitlement cuts that get proposed, they are consistently cuts of pennies compared to dollars of military extravagances and it's all deficit spending.
Most of the federal budget is attached to Social Services now. It hasn't always been that way. And I defy you to explain how MOST people on the dole are starving in the streets. That's a totally unfair characterization and most of them are in fact VERY well off. If they have a car and a TV they're not fucking poor, no matter what the stated poverty level is. There are deadbeats that are STILL lounging around on the US ticket from New Orleans. People that have lived in public housing for their entire lives.
A great deal of the government's costs are attached to administration of constitutionally questionable programs which should pay for themselves under appropriate funding sources (fuel taxes for road infrastructure) but do not because there is so much waste attached to the administration of those programs. some make sense constitutionally, like Interstate highways (why don't you include those in the Jingoist characterizations, come on, Ike built them on the Autobahn pattern for Military Logistics purposes). But some do not. Funding for HUD does not have a place in the Constitution. Again, I challenge you to cite the section of the constitution where Congress is granted the authority to fund such endeavors.
no subject
>>"Cite the article section and paragraph."
I think this challenge really speaks for itself.
GA: There is no statement in this document that says X.
M: Show me exactly where that statement is. I challenge you! Blahblahblah, etc.
GA: *sigh*