WaGuns.org

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

In before thread lock

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

Throughout history, governments that have grown too powerful and unaccountable have committed the worst human rights atrocities - far worse than any terrorist group or radical religious sect. Is it any wonder, then, that freedom-loving Americans have a healthy skepticism for government's ability to limit itself and not abuse its power?

I think you grossly overstate the sentiment when you say that "the vast majority [of us] are against government involvement in almost anything". I speak for myself, and likely many other members, when I say that it is more anti-over-involvement. There are many legitimate functions of government I support (establish currency, provide national security, ensure consumer protections, maintain transportation infrastructure, etc.). I recognize the overall role of government in maintaining order and security while revering individual liberty and not stifling commerce. The problem with our government (federal, in particular) is that is has far overstepped its constitutionally-enumerated powers. The Constitution was crafted to limit federal power and keep power concentrated as close to the People as possible. But if you're paying any attention, you know that is no longer the case. I could cite a litany of examples of federal overreach, but I think we all know there are plenty (NFA/GCA comes to mind first, as does Department of Education). The worse it gets, the more vocal people like me will be about it.

Please don't conflate demands for limited constitutional government with support for anarchy.

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

The distinction for me (only) is that the military has a centuries old code of honor that kept it focused on its job of being ready to defend or beat the snot out of those who trampled one of our friends. Civilian programs, on the other hand, attract the very worst among us - those who are in it for the cash they could get under the table and those who want personal power to control the lives of others. Our military has not been perfect, but so many civilian programs have been corrupt or onerous that they cast suspicion on the few that may be worthy or even necessary.

Hence I have bias from experience (not prejudice from fear).

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

I think .mil should be scaled back, and focus on our border defenses.

The ONLY thing that clinton did right, IMO.

TechnoWeenie wrote:

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

I think .mil should be scaled back, and focus on our border defenses.

The ONLY thing that clinton did right, IMO.

Bosnia?

DocNugent wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

I think .mil should be scaled back, and focus on our border defenses.

The ONLY thing that clinton did right, IMO.

Bosnia?

.mil scale down, budget surplus.

Guns4Liberty wrote:

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

Throughout history, governments that have grown too powerful and unaccountable have committed the worst human rights atrocities - far worse than any terrorist group or radical religious sect. Is it any wonder, then, that freedom-loving Americans have a healthy skepticism for government's ability to limit itself and not abuse its power?

Not at all, which is why those of us on the liberal side are extremely suspicious of the power institutions such as military, intelligence, and police. This is also why American founders agonized over the questions over creating the standing army - and especially the Navy, which requires standing force. Because the possibility of human rights abuse by FCC, or EPA, or really any other government branch is far, far less than that of police, or the military, or FBI.

Guns4Liberty wrote:I think you grossly overstate the sentiment when you say that "the vast majority [of us] are against government involvement in almost anything". I speak for myself, and likely many other members, when I say that it is more anti-over-involvement.

Alright, this is great, but is the military that spends more than the next 10 countries combined - 8 of which are allies - not an over-involvement? And if not, why other branches of government that spend far less, in per-capita terms relative to other developed countries are an example of over-involvement?

DocNugent wrote:

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

The distinction for me (only) is that the military has a centuries old code of honor that kept it focused on its job of being ready to defend or beat the snot out of those who trampled one of our friends.

So first of all, I think you will have trouble naming a civil institution responsible for anything remotely close to My Lai, or Abu Ghraib, or anything else from, for example, this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes. US civilian agencies don't seem to be performing waterboarding or any other sort of "enhanced" interrogation, extrajudicial executions, etc. I have never heard of EPA, for instance, firing on unarmed civilians. So your idea of the military farting rainbows and unicorns is about as realistic as your idea of Obama being a Marxist.

Civilian programs, on the other hand, attract the very worst among us - those who are in it for the cash they could get under the table and those who want personal power to control the lives of others.

Now, where's this shit coming from? That's an incredibly broad and absolutely ridiculous accusation. Really? Your post office employee is working for the government because they want to control the lives of others? Or a scientist in a government lab is there to make money on unsuspecting taxpayers? Although I've got to say, this is probably just the reflection of the absolutely moronic attitude that Republicans exhibit towards science in general.

solyanik wrote:. . . is the military that spends more than the next 10 countries combined - 8 of which are allies - not an over-involvement? And if not, why other branches of government that spend far less, in per-capita terms relative to other developed countries are an example of over-involvement?

Sounds like you've already researched this: What is the per capita expenditure of US, China, and Russia on environmental protection?

EPA budget in US, ~$8B/year (http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget)
Environmental spending in China, ~$160B/year (http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we- ... stment-in/)
Whatever it is in Russia, I don't give a flying fuck. It's a conservative paradise, so it is probably zero.

Military functions as the fist of federal government foreign policy - they are also beholden to The Commander in Chief - the president of the USA.

They take their marching orders from the bureaucracy, and the chicken hawks in Congress.

However, they also take an oath to defend the Constitution of The United States of America.

That makes the military an interesting hybrid of order takers, and defenders of the American People.

FOR THE MOST PART AND -

They are not above reproach or scrutiny, same as their suited overlords in Washington, D.C.

American attitude is that federal and oversight needs to be constantly scrutinized.

Why the fuck would anyone have a problem with that attitude ?

I think, if you do, you shouldn't live in this country, because you do not take the responsibility of being a citizen of this country seriously enough.

" The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. "

Google that phrase up, mo fo's.

solyanik wrote:EPA budget in US, ~$8B/year (http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget)
Environmental spending in China, ~$160B/year (http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we- ... stment-in/)
Whatever it is in Russia, I don't give a flying fuck. It's a conservative paradise, so it is probably zero.

EPA is not the only government money not to mention corporate and private organization dollars in total being spent in the USA on environmental spending - yours is a straw man argument.

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

Limiting government does not equal anti-government. Personally, I think military spending is the first thing we should cut.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

solyanik wrote:Can the antigovernment people enlighten me on this - vast majority of you is against government involvement in almost anything - because you think the government will screw it up - except for the military - which you think is important enough for a trillion a year spending. How is it that the government is good at military, but cannot be trusted with anything else?

There may be some that think the military should be a government entity but you can't count me among them. I think it should be state militias separate of state governing entities, basically run by the people because it is the people. Having one guy or even 535 guys/gals say we are sending you to die, just doesn't cut it with me knowing that their interests can be sold to the highest bidders.

So me personally, no i do not believe the government can do anything better than anyone... literally ever, unless we are talking about screwing up being one of the things they do better.

New article about the FCC Rules.

Wheeler said the new system includes "only four" hard and fast rules:
1. bans on Internet service providers blocking traffic,
2. bans on Internet service providers throttling traffic,
3. bans on Internet service providers prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment
4. a requirement to be transparent about network practices.

Any other actions by Internet providers will be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is "just and reasonable,". The FCC will "ask the question 'What's the impact on consumers, what's the impact on edge providers, and is the public interest served?'

The FCC is not imposing any rate regulation or tariff requirements.

"This is not regulating the Internet. Regulating the Internet is rate regulation, which we don't do, tariffing, which we don't do, getting into the details of how you offer your network, what the terms are going to be... We are for an open Internet. That is not regulation of the Internet. That is a very simple statement that says 'no government or private entity will block people's access to use the network as a vehicle for expression and innovation.'" The Internet needs a "referee with a yardstick," he said.

"There are 48 sections in Title II," Wheeler said. "In the wireless environment, the FCC forbeared from, did not use, 19 of those 48. We're not using 27 of those [for broadband]. We're more deregulatory than the Title II program that was so incredibly successful for wireless."

Basically, if you have a problem with Net Neutrality, then you should have a twice-as-big problem with your Cell Phone and the governments regulation of it. Clearly the "takeover of the cellular industry" was twice as big as the "Government takeover of the internet".

Now will those two damn Republicans please release the actual 8 pages and quit being little whiny bitches? They wanted to review the 8 page proposal in advance and demanded it be released, and yet now they are blocking it's release. Hypocrite much?