19 Mar 13
1 edit
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-38-million-decrease-human-elephant-conflict
Why give the government money when it spends it like this?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/27m-federal-study-why-do-lesbians-have-higher-risk-hazardous-drinking
The US government is out of control.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarThe government is swayed by interest groups, to the degree that they have political power. (Dictatorships usually aren't so swayed, certainly not by elephant huggers.) Some of those interest groups might oppose your interests and you might oppose some of theirs. It's part of what has made Amurrica great!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-38-million-decrease-human-elephant-conflict
Why give the government money when it spends it like this?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/27m-federal-study-why-do-lesbians-have-higher-risk-hazardous-drinking
The US government is out of control.
Besides, saving the elephants will secure a longer term supply of ivory hanko stamps, trinkets and statuettes that are so vital to civilization as we know it.
19 Mar 13
Originally posted by sh76We know that a major responsibility of government under the Constitution is defense. We also suspect that a lot of "defense" isn't defensive. We spend way too much on arms, but some other things have no Constitutional basis, or rational reason for the expense.
Zing!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignIn America, a rational reason for something like saving the elephants can be "We have been led to think that a majority of the citizens want it, and it's not been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. If the people don't really want it we will hear about it. If the gripers aren't able to mount a political campaign to defeat it, they don't dislike it enough."
We know that a major responsibility of government under the Constitution is defense. We also suspect that a lot of "defense" isn't defensive. We spend way too much on arms, but some other things have no Constitutional basis, or rational reason for the expense.
19 Mar 13
Originally posted by JS357There is a difference between stuff not prohibited by the Constitution or SCOTUS, and those things that are enumerated duties of government.
In America, a rational reason for something like saving the elephants can be "We have been led to think that a majority of the citizens want it, and it's not been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. If the people don't really want it we will hear about it. If the gripers aren't able to mount a political campaign to defeat it, they don't dislike it enough."
You are right that we haven't been vocal enough.
20 Mar 13
Originally posted by sh76Liberals are pathetic.
Zing!
Spending money on national defense is a proper use of the government as defined by the US Constitution.
I'm all for finding and getting rid of fraud in the military industrial complex, but state of the art equipment is going to cost money and hopefully save US lives.
I know some people have difficulty seeing the difference between US lives and lives of those who attack the US, but such people are pathetic.
20 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarWhen was the last time supercarriers and stealth jets saved American lives?
Liberals are pathetic.
Spending money on national defense is a proper use of the government as defined by the US Constitution.
I'm all for finding and getting rid of fraud in the military industrial complex, but state of the art equipment is going to cost money and hopefully save US lives.
I know some people have difficulty seeing the difference between US lives and lives of those who attack the US, but such people are pathetic.