I agree with that. But (and much like "national security") the policies that Clinton enacted paved the road for the Bush administration. Bush couldn't have gotten away with what he did without Bill Clinton to point to and say "See, the Democrats did it too!"
Jeez, you're right. What else could we possibly have done?
Maybe...We could have sent two helicopters full of Navy SEALs over there and shot that motherfucker in the head. Ten years and three trillion dollars ago, I mean.
Afghanistan has more recorded conquests than most other countries
I don't think that means what you think that means.
Most memorably perhaps, the Mongols conquered Afghanistan. Most recently, the Taliban conquered it. If the Taliban can, why can't the US? Among others, it was conquered by the Achaemenids, the Mauryan empire, the Parthians, the Sassanids, the Mughals, even the British maintained control for 40 years until Afghanistan wasn't important anymore, and then they gave them independence.
So what you're saying here is that ultimately, nobody wins in Afghanistan.
You are wrong. The market deregulation that ultimately led to the housing bubble and the bank crises were policies enacted by Bill Clinton. That's not passing the buck. That's causality.
You are completely wrong about everything you just said.
Social Security is dependent on there being more current "investors" to pay off the previous ones.
No it's not. Learn about how Social Security works and where that money goes. I don't even have the interest to explain all the reasons that this is nonsense.
The previous investors are now comparatively more numerous and demanding more payments (thanks to medical technology increasing life spans).
No it's not. The "life spans are longer" argument is bullshit. Infant mortality continues to fall, driving the average life span up. That doesn't mean people are living longer. They are not. Learn about statistics.
Better would be simply taking the SS tax money and putting it in a vault somewhere, accessible upon retirement and paid on a fixed schedule.
No it's not. Inflation means your money is worth less tomorrow than it was this morning. Learn about economics.
If the government didn't spend money on social services they would be able to lower taxes on everything, decreasing the cost of living and improving the quality of life for the citizens.
Of course. That happens all the time. When the government cuts services, they lower taxes! When services are cut, the quality of living goes up and the cost of living goes down! It's amazing!
Actually, none of those things are true, and you're a fucking idiot.
al Qaida doesn't want us to "erode our freedoms" or "literally destroy America." They want us out of the Middle East. Whatever you've heard, they don't hate us for our freedoms. They don't give a fuck about our freedoms.
On a related note, after I posted this I was thinking about it; I checked this out, and it turns out that the copper in a pre-1982 penny is actually worth about $0.02.
That is correct. And as has been discussed in several subthreads, completely unconstitutional. The Constitution itself is mute on private currency, and deliberately so. During the late 1700s, it was commonplace for banks and businesses to issue their own notes.
That's not what the Constitution says at all. In a nutshell: The Congress has the power to coin money. States are specifically forbidden from doing so. Private entities can, but they can't force anyone to take it. That is all the Constitution has to say on the subject of printing money.
That still doesn't say anything about private currency. That says the States (when capitalized in the Constitution it means the entity of the state) cannot make competing currencies.
The passage you cited gives Congress the power to set rates and values for the currency they printed. It doesn't have anything to do with private currency.
You're still dissembling. In this thread you have thus far demonstrated that: 1. Congress may print money, and 2. states may not. The Constitution is utterly mute on the subject of private currency, and deliberately so, because it was a common practice at the time. It was not until much later, during the mid-1800s, that Congress and the courts started interpreting the Constitution like you do. The framers certainly did not.
So you settled on the "let's fuck everything up every six months" distro and now you're shocked - SHOCKED - that that's exactly what they're doing? Broaden your horizons, man.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's stupidly easy to switch out of Unity and forget about it.
Indeed it is.
Certainly. I comprehend from your examples that no one can hold Afghanistan. History has yet to provide a single counterexample.
I agree with that. But (and much like "national security") the policies that Clinton enacted paved the road for the Bush administration. Bush couldn't have gotten away with what he did without Bill Clinton to point to and say "See, the Democrats did it too!"
I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I don't read that in the OP's post. It seems to be more buck-passing.
Jeez, you're right. What else could we possibly have done?
Maybe...We could have sent two helicopters full of Navy SEALs over there and shot that motherfucker in the head. Ten years and three trillion dollars ago, I mean.
Afghanistan has more recorded conquests than most other countries
I don't think that means what you think that means.
Most memorably perhaps, the Mongols conquered Afghanistan. Most recently, the Taliban conquered it. If the Taliban can, why can't the US? Among others, it was conquered by the Achaemenids, the Mauryan empire, the Parthians, the Sassanids, the Mughals, even the British maintained control for 40 years until Afghanistan wasn't important anymore, and then they gave them independence.
So what you're saying here is that ultimately, nobody wins in Afghanistan.
You are wrong. The market deregulation that ultimately led to the housing bubble and the bank crises were policies enacted by Bill Clinton. That's not passing the buck. That's causality.
You are completely wrong about everything you just said.
Social Security is dependent on there being more current "investors" to pay off the previous ones.
No it's not. Learn about how Social Security works and where that money goes. I don't even have the interest to explain all the reasons that this is nonsense.
The previous investors are now comparatively more numerous and demanding more payments (thanks to medical technology increasing life spans).
No it's not. The "life spans are longer" argument is bullshit. Infant mortality continues to fall, driving the average life span up. That doesn't mean people are living longer. They are not. Learn about statistics.
Better would be simply taking the SS tax money and putting it in a vault somewhere, accessible upon retirement and paid on a fixed schedule.
No it's not. Inflation means your money is worth less tomorrow than it was this morning. Learn about economics.
If the government didn't spend money on social services they would be able to lower taxes on everything, decreasing the cost of living and improving the quality of life for the citizens.
Of course. That happens all the time. When the government cuts services, they lower taxes! When services are cut, the quality of living goes up and the cost of living goes down! It's amazing!
Actually, none of those things are true, and you're a fucking idiot.
What is your point, troll?
Bush and Cheney got elected as tough-guy militarists
They absolutely did not. Bush ran in 2000 on a damn near isolationist foreign policy platform. "No more nation building," "No more Kosovos."
al Qaida doesn't want us to "erode our freedoms" or "literally destroy America." They want us out of the Middle East. Whatever you've heard, they don't hate us for our freedoms. They don't give a fuck about our freedoms.
+1 interesting.
On a related note, after I posted this I was thinking about it; I checked this out, and it turns out that the copper in a pre-1982 penny is actually worth about $0.02.
The metal value in all metal coins is less than the face value of the coin. That's what makes the system work.
That is correct. And as has been discussed in several subthreads, completely unconstitutional. The Constitution itself is mute on private currency, and deliberately so. During the late 1700s, it was commonplace for banks and businesses to issue their own notes.
That's not what the Constitution says at all. In a nutshell: The Congress has the power to coin money. States are specifically forbidden from doing so. Private entities can, but they can't force anyone to take it. That is all the Constitution has to say on the subject of printing money.
I call Ponzi scheme on the whole bitcoin thing.
Wow, citation desperately needed.
I see the distinction. Agreed.
That still doesn't say anything about private currency. That says the States (when capitalized in the Constitution it means the entity of the state) cannot make competing currencies.
The passage you cited gives Congress the power to set rates and values for the currency they printed. It doesn't have anything to do with private currency.
You're still dissembling. In this thread you have thus far demonstrated that: 1. Congress may print money, and 2. states may not. The Constitution is utterly mute on the subject of private currency, and deliberately so, because it was a common practice at the time. It was not until much later, during the mid-1800s, that Congress and the courts started interpreting the Constitution like you do. The framers certainly did not.
If it's plainly stated, why didn't you state it? There is nothing in the passage you cited that says Congress is the only party allowed to coin money.
The Constitution doesn't say anything like that.
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States
There's nothing about "sole authority" in there.
Arch Linux: Slackware For Human Beings.
So you settled on the "let's fuck everything up every six months" distro and now you're shocked - SHOCKED - that that's exactly what they're doing? Broaden your horizons, man.