The military budget needs to but cut, but also restructured. Divert most of the funds to the engineers and let them rebuild the US infrastructure. This creates jobs, doesn't blow people up, keeps the money in the US and puts it to good use.

Read the fuckign Constitution. Of all the shit that the Federal Government does, the one thing it is actually LISTED to do in the Constitution is National Defense...ie. Military.

All the other (socialist) spending is socialism. Military spending is it's fucking obligation, you moronic 'tard.

"How do you assure that you're not the last to get your hands on the Terminators?"

Is it really your impression that the United States has not taken enough steps yet to ensure that it's not the last to get its hands on the Terminators?

Arnold Schwarzenegger is still pretty young, we don't need any more terminators yet...

" Read the fuckign Constitution. Of all the shit that the Federal Government does, the one thing it is actually LISTED to do in the Constitution is National Defense...ie. Military. "

Woah woah woah!

Fixing the standards of weights and measures, establishing post offices, making patent law, and coining money are all there very uncontroversially, too.

@krellin: so don't you think it overdoes that a bit? You could actually just save on taxes/debt as well, I'm just pointing out that military spending isn't an optimal way of creating jobs, which I think you'll agree with me.

We're really not disagreeing that much I presume, I think you just misunderstand my position.

@semck83: I was talking to Draugnar who said the tech funding should go to tech upgrades, not alternatives. Terminators sound like alternatives to me, so I was asking if Draugnar wants to give up trying to keep that headstart.

I think that I don't disagree with you on this either, since I haven't even given an opinion on it. I want to know how Draugnar feels about spending tech funds on those alternatives.

Blame Marshall for that, not Obama.

Word, Steephie.

Not a fan of McCulloch, Bo?

"Word, Steephie."

?

It means I'm agreeing with you.

Nah, implied powers are okay. Couldn't live without them in today's world. The commerce clause is the one that gets to me, but I don't hold grudges for 200 years, so it's all good.

... I never would have guessed that.

That was to semck.

Anyways, happy we agree :P

Yeah Steephie, that's the way with most idiomatic phrases. One of the reasons second languages are so difficult, for sure.

@bo_sox, agreed. But you must still be encouraged by the slight trend toward walking back the Commerce Clause in the past 20 years.

Yeah, a bit. They can't pull the absolutely ridiculous anymore (see Lopez v US - I think that was in the 90s), but it's not where it needs to be.

Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying Lopez is ridiculous? I meant it was one of the cases that should encourage you.

Perhaps I misunderstood your initial complaint.

@semck83: It's usually double Dutch to me... ^_^

(I'm Dutch. Get it? :P)

No, semck, I meant that the commerce clause argument in that case was ridiculous, and it fortunately didn't work.

Oh right, gotcha.

Yes. The Lopez line seemed dead until NIFB v Sebelius, but there's reason for hope again at the moment.

"Mark Rutte doesn't really make decisions for the country since we are, well, a democracy"

Rutte coordinates government policy and chairs the council of ministers. You're still a representative democracy, just a parliamentary one.

I still don't understand that case. I've read the opinions and the arguments preceding, but it's just too thin a line for me. I'm not a lawyer, I guess. The Medicaid part all makes sense, but the ACA is just waaaay over my head when it comes down to the minute details.

How are they 'pulling the ridiculous' if the effort failed?

Why do intelligent people still give a damn about this archaic document?

Pulling the ridiculous is saying that parts of a gun may or may not have been manufactured in another state and/or may have at one point some time way back when been shipped across state lines, therefore it's regulable under Article I Section 8. It just shows how much faith they put into those few words about regulating interstate commerce.

The country is supposed to live by it, Putin. There's no reason to abandon it because it's still a highly relevant and useful piece of policy, even if parts of it are undeniably outdated. Why is that so crazy?

It rather shows how vague and poorly written the document is, and how unhelpful it is for guiding policy, not to mention how inflexible it is for meeting the needs of a country in the 21st century. People have tried to find flexibility in the poor wording of the document, this is what you call 'ridiculous'. I call it trying to govern with an 18th strait-jacket on.

"Rutte coordinates government policy and chairs the council of ministers."

Which is a big deal in America. Here, you're just another minister. IMO at least.

"You're still a representative democracy, just a parliamentary one."

True. However, minor parties get a minor vote when it comes to executive stuff for example, while in America it tends to be a bit more that either the Democrats or Republicans rule. Our system is much more accurate in representation IMO. I mean, it seems much more likely to me that some law or something that is actually supported by a minority of the people gets through in America than here, because here we're not quite 2 parties everyone has to choose between. If you don't like any of the current parties, you can realistically make your own party and have your own influence on government here, which doesn't seem the case in the USA.

There are merits to both systems though, but I remain thinking that Rutte doesn't really make decisions for the country.

So if a coalition misses one vote, they need to change their proposal in such a way that the animal lovers join them for example if they want the law to go through. Laws are to be adapted to precise demands until a majority supports them, which is not just the party that won the last election but the coalition that can find agreement on the law in question. Wether you consider that a good thing or not is your choice of course.

If WP is not a smokescreen why is it always used as a smokescreen?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/4441822.stm

"In non-international armed conflicts, you can't murder or otherwise intentionally harm non-combatants."

Where is the evidence that Israel used WP as an anti-personnel weapon against civilians?

"Laws are to be adapted to precise demands until a majority supports them, which is not just the party that won the last election but the coalition that can find agreement on the law in question"

The USA rarely has one-party government in power. And even when they do, it is extremely rare that they could ignore the wishes of the minority in the Senate. We actually the opposite problem from what you describe, the minority has a great deal of power in our system to obstruct anything from getting passed. So for legislation to pass it essentially needs widespread support.