More Chat about Originalism, Constitutionalism and German Liberalism

[NotNow]

If you think going $1.6 TRILLION in debt every year is taking us to a good place financially, then I'd like to hear your explanation.

If you can't understand my posts, then you should not make comments that make you sound illiterate.  Now, wash yourself in the blood of Jesus and see if you can be of some use in the discussion.

That said, I stand corrected on the 81% figure.  That figure appears to be at least close to reality if all defense related spending is counted.

Great, so you're in agreement we should immediately cease all foreign military intervention since we can't afford it?

I believe that we should immediately cease doing a LOT of things right now because we can not afford it.  Our leaders should not commit us to war for anything less than those interests that are vital to our country.  I am assuming as a citizen that is what our government is doing currently. 

If I had my way, based on what I know, then we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan except for strong bases long ago.  I have not seen good results from nation building.  I would never have entered us into the Libyan fray.

[NotNow]

I'm unsure what you mean.  What "ranks" are you referring to?  I have never bandied the word "traitor" around like you do, because I know what it means.  In my humble opinion, once the President of the United States commits the country to military action, then he should be supported.  That is what I meant when I said that I was assuming as a citizen that our government is committing our Armed Forces based on the facts that are available to them and the President, but not available to me.  Thus, while I have not seen a reason to involve the country in Libya, I support President Obama's efforts because he is the President and that is what we elected him to do.  I have in the past, and I would again back those values with my life.  I have never mistaken your complete misunderstanding of those serving in the military to mean you were stupid.  I HAVE taken offense at your blanket condemnation of service people and your declarations of criminal guilt against members of the military on several occasions.  I stand by those opinions and the facts have consistently corroborated my views.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while I would always follow the orders of my government, I think that we would be better served by simply dominating militarily and leaving the nation and their governments to the citizens.  The rights of women, homosexuals, or different religious sects can be decided by the people of those countries and has no critical impact on the United States.  We should maintain a strong presence in strategic locations in Iraq because of it's strategic location in the world.  We should maintain a strong military presence outside of Kabul to prevent a recurrence of 9/11.  I would not hesitate to use military force against terrorist or any other force that threatens the US in either country.  But the civilian population could do as they please and govern themselves as they see fit.  That would cost much, much less than the current $170 Billion we are spending there.  But it is obvious that the President and his advisors see the situation differently.

[NotNow]

And do you have some point?  I see nothing in what you have posted that has anything to do with the conversation here.  (Again)

[NotNow]

Apparently, you are attempting to list some of the instances in past (of many) where you were wrong and I was right.  Are you seeing the light now StephenDare!? 

[NotNow]

LOL, if you would reread the posts you would find that I stated opposition to several of the policies of the time. 

The quote in reply #184 is not "derisive" at all, and I stand by the statements in it.  Since all of the comments were lifted out of previous conversations and are not in context, it would be possible to think that my correction of your characterization of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac as "nationalizing" was an endorsement of the action.  It was not.  It was simply a correction of your language.  I think the rest of the post is fairly clear and to the point and does not contradict any of my more recent statements.

Do you stand by your statement:

"Nationalizing Banks, Liberal foreign adventuring, Redefining the meaning of the Consitution to creat a 'unitary presidency', a fourth branch of government called the Vice President and this socialist Deficit spending to the tune of trillions on an unfunded war is far, Far, FARRRR Left.    The bank nationalizations themselves are as far left as you can go.  They are pure communist."

If so, can you still call President Obama "conservative" as you did in that post?

As for the five quotes in reply #186...

The first is in response to the WMD situation in Iraq as I recall.  I pointed out that tons of yellow cake uranium had been found and removed from Iraq.  The substance is dangerous to life.  (If you recall, when I mentioned that I had a friend who was disabled during this operation, you made fun of me and my friend)  I don't see any derisive language there either and I stand by the statements that I made.  I would ask you...Were there large quantities of Yellow Cake found in Iraq?  Is that substance dangerous to life?  Can it be "weaponized"?

In the second quote, I was responding to a poster who identified himself as a refugee of Bosnia who constantly complained about American policy in Bosnia and around the world, as well as local laws and American customs.  Of course, whether this poster was really who and what he said is debatable.  But this was an instance that I responded to a broad allegation that no Americans knew what it was like to be shot at and he claimed that America was backward because you can't drink beer on the streets.  I forget what the McCain and other remarks were over.  Perhaps this comment could be taken as derisive, but in context with the other poster I would say I was provoked. 

In the third comment, the first paragraph was (I believe) a response to the debate over CCTV surveillance of city streets.  It accurately represented my opinion and was not derisive.  (I even asked for other opinions.)  In the following paragraphs, I was simply agreeing with you and others that the use of Halliburton in Iraq was a mistake.  I simply listed other reasons.  Again, I see nothing derisive, and I sincerely believe that service to our nation changes the outlook of the citizens who get the opportunity to do it.

In the fourth quote, I still feel this way about the global warming debate and I stand by my statement, which I clearly labeled as my opinion.  No derisiveness here either.

In the final quote, this was a response in one of our little "debates".  If you want to tag that thread so that others can read it in context I would be more than happy to defend everything I said.  I am still offended by your statements about our men and women who are risking their lives.  I still think that you owe them a public apology for your public accusations.

I have always called for responsible Federal budgeting.  I disagree with your self description as a "fiscal conservative".  Haven't you stated time and time again that Federal debt doesn't matter?  I think that "spending", much of it on social services, much of it on other items, is the reason that the Federal government is in debt.  You seem to think it is because we don't collect enough taxes.  We disagree again. 

Much of what was in all of those posts is opinion.  I am entitled to mine, you are entitled to yours.  What facts are contained in them seem to me to be valid. 

What has your panties all in a wad today?

[finehoe]

Haven't you stated time and time again that Federal debt doesn't matter? 

That was Dick Cheney.  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp

[Timkin]

Cheney's gotta gun