U.S drone strike kills Iranian General.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, and then said:

They tell people who don't know any better that they have a RIGHT to the fruits of the labor of others.

No, they probably just want a system where money doesn't drain away from the hoi-polloi through differential taxing, mainly. That inevitably leads to vast accumulations of wealth in few hands. Anyone who defends a couple dozen people having greater wealth than half the US population, is no friend of the people.

[Farmer77]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Just because one side lost and one side won, does not mean that we lost half of our culture.  Both the Industrial North and the Antebellum South are part of the American duality.  The Civil War did not change that.  We did not relinquish our individuality when the South lost.  We acquired new found unity.  General Lee is very much an American hero today as he has always been.  That he was on the losing side doesn’t matter all that much now.  Without Grant *AND* Lee, we would not be who we are today.  I can trace my family lines back to both sides.  There were many lessons to be learned.  But we are forgetting them and trying to fight the old battles as a means of distraction.  The old North and South merged back together a long time ago but with that healing new divisions have taken hold.  Slavery is still with us but in a different form.  The thing is, is that the differences between North and South are not as great as this new menace.  The North and South became one again, they all became Americans.  This new menace will never be American.  It is a far more insidious enemy of the people.  Divisions are just too great and there will be no healing until blood has been spilled.

Youre talking about history not culture.

 

[Farmer77]

 

[F3SS]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Are those people in the know named in that article? Whatever one I read earlier were just "sources with knowledge". Not saying it isn't true but it could've been you who called the Post with that info. 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Are those people in the know named in that article? Whatever one I read earlier were just "sources with knowledge". Not saying it isn't true but it could've been you who called the Post with that info. 

While I fundamentally disagree about the publishing process, I get the question.

The pentagon has confirmed a strike happened but hasnt provided details

Quote

Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich said officials have seen a report regarding a Jan. 2 strike in Yemen, and said the region had long been a “safe space for terrorists and other adversaries to the United States.”

WSJ and Washpo have both decided to lock me out of the relevant articles so I grabbed that from The Daily Beast

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-targeted-another-iranian-official-in-yemen-on-same-day-as-soleimani-strike-wapo?ref=home

[Farmer77]

Trump Official Spreads False Information While Defending Soleimani Assassination

 

[RavenHawk]

50 minutes ago, Setton said:

In your eyes. Because, again, you can't comprehend that others might disagree with you on what is best for your nation. 

Oh, I comprehend that others will disagree with me.  That’s life.  And that doesn’t nullify that everybody’s opinion is legitimate.  Everyone’s opinion has value.  And that also doesn’t soften the fact that some people’s opinions are wrong.  I won’t argue that Socialism is illegitimate.  It is after all, the most common form of government on the planet.  But for this nation, Socialism has no place.  It is a form of slavery and this nation has been fighting that stigma from its beginnings.  This country was established on the concepts put forth in the Founding Documents.  By definition, the precepts of Socialism stand in opposition to the Constitution of the United States.  There is no argument that Socialism is not in the best interests of this nation.  My eyes see through the eyes of the Founding Fathers.  I’m not bent on doing away with what they gave us.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

By definition, the precepts of Socialism stand in opposition to the Constitution of the United States.

No they dont.

 

 

[RavenHawk]

7 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Youre talking about history not culture.

 

Many times, the two overlap.

[RavenHawk]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No they dont.

 

 

Really?!

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Many times, the two overlap.

They do but youre discussing national history and regional culture - not American culture. And again if we were talking about actual battlefields, graveyards, forts etc I would actually agree that they are cultural sites. The conversation however started by calling monuments to individuals who fought for the confederacy American Cultural sites and thats simply not true.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Really?!

 

Yeah dude. Administration matters. Socialism absolutely can be used in a manner inconsistent with the constitution and the founders' intent. So can capitalism , so can any type or level of government, but socialist principles are not necessarily anti constitutional.

[RavenHawk]

8 hours ago, and then said:

Sadly, I think you are correct.  My anger focuses on the provocateurs in the media complex.  Without them, this nation would NOT be in the throes of near rebellion again.  If violence ever does come, I sincerely hope that they yield up their pound of flesh just like the rest of us.

Unfortunately, It isn’t a matter of if, but when?  The impeachment is going to go nowhere and if the real collusion begins to get investigated, and the progs will not have any chance at the White House with this crop of candidates, and Trump is winning points on every level, the Progs will be left with only one final action.

[RavenHawk]

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

They do but youre discussing national history and regional culture - not American culture.

I’m talking about both.  Regional culture *IS* American culture.  The Stars & Bars is ever as much a part of me as Yankee Doodle.  Baseball grew from regional culture to become a national pastime that unites us.  American music can trace its origins from many different regions and it strikes an accord with this nation’s soul.

 

The conversation however started by calling monuments to individuals who fought for the confederacy American Cultural sites and thats simply not true.

And you are totally and completely wrong.  The Confederacy *IS* American culture (or a part of it).

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Habitat said:

No, they probably just want a system where money doesn't drain away from the hoi-polloi through differential taxing, mainly. That inevitably leads to vast accumulations of wealth in few hands. Anyone who defends a couple dozen people having greater wealth than half the US population, is no friend of the people.

Do you have an example of how the equity of outcome that we all seek can be created without allowing a government to take full control and subjugate people "for their own good"?  My problem isn't with fairer tax laws or a system  that can help to bring better outcomes for people.  The problem is that demanding wealth from people and "sharing" it with people who have no stake in either the economy OR the country is the usual next step and it unfailingly leads to disaster.

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I’m talking about both.  Regional culture *IS* American culture.  The Stars & Bars is ever as much a part of me as Yankee Doodle.  Baseball grew from regional culture to become a national pastime that unites us.  American music can trace its origins from many different regions and it strikes an accord with this nation’s soul.

and none of those lost a war that they started so they could no longer be called American. Honestly that the winners write the history is just a fact of life.

6 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And you are totally and completely wrong.  The Confederacy *IS* American culture (or a part of it).

Youre too caught up in the emotion. Think about the things ive actually said. I dont argue that the confederacy isnt part of American culture, just that monuments to those who fought for the confederacy,  some of which have been put up as recently as the last decade, dont fit the criteria of American Cultural sites.

Confederate graveyard? Absolutely. Confederate Musuem? Yep  Monument to an individual who fought for the confederacy? Nope.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Farmer77

[RavenHawk]

22 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah dude. Administration matters. Socialism absolutely can be used in a manner inconsistent with the constitution and the founders' intent.

Not can be, but *IS*.

 

So can capitalism ,

Not capitalism.  Republic and Capitalism are two peas in a pod.  You may be referring to crony capitalism which is what happens when Socialism gains control of the means of production.

 

so can any type or level of government, but socialist principles are not necessarily anti constitutional.

Socialism is the complete opposite of the concepts found in the Constitution.

[Farmer77]

22 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Socialism is the complete opposite of the concepts found in the Constitution.

Yeah the Constitution itself argues against that starting at the preamble. My brain drifts to healthcare when discussing socialism so thats where im coming from here.

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It then goes on to say in Article 2 Section 8 :

Quote

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 8 then concludes with:

Quote

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

So I showed you how socialist concepts can absolutely be constitutional. 

Am I missing something? Can you show me how they necessarily aren't?

Edited January 11, 2020 by Farmer77

[Setton]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

There is no argument that Socialism is not in the best interests of this nation

"Every opinion is valid and has value." 

"Except this one because I don't agree with it." 

[Space Commander Travis]

What are we all talking about now? This seems to have drifted onto ravenhawk explaining, thanks to his deep knowledge of everything, how evil socialism is . 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It is a form of slavery and this nation has been fighting that stigma from its beginnings.

[RoofGardener]

40 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

What are we all talking about now? This seems to have drifted onto ravenhawk explaining, thanks to his deep knowledge of everything, how evil socialism is . 

I have NO idea, @Dumbledore the Awesome. Perhaps the missile that killed the General had socialist tendencies ? 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah the Constitution itself argues against that starting at the preamble. My brain drifts to healthcare when discussing socialism so thats where im coming from here.

It then goes on to say in Article 2 Section 8 :

Section 8 then concludes with:

 

So I showed you how socialist concepts can absolutely be constitutional. 

Am I missing something? Can you show me how they necessarily aren't?

Enough Is Enough: Why General Welfare Limits Spending

https://www.cato.org/blog/ron-paul-general-welfare-clause

The General Welfare Clause doesn't mean what you think it does. But seeing how most of your interpretations on the Constitution are to the left of Norm Chomsky it comes as no surprise.

[Farmer77]

21 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Enough Is Enough: Why General Welfare Limits Spending

https://www.cato.org/blog/ron-paul-general-welfare-clause

The General Welfare Clause doesn't mean what you think it does. But seeing how most of your interpretations on the Constitution are to the left of Norm Chomsky it comes as no surprise.

Sigh I understand what it means. Both everywhere else in the world and here based on the most recent court interpretation.

So did these guys: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

Quote

The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read -

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

 

 

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

 

 

I also understand that general welfare isnt tthe only provision that universal healthcare AND education could and do fit under.

The Looming National Security Crisis: Young Americans Unable to Serve in the Military

Quote

The military depends on a constant flow of volunteers every year. According to 2017 Pentagon data, 71 percent of young Americans between 17 and 24 are ineligible to serve in the United States military. Put another way: Over 24 million of the 34 million people of that age group cannot join the armed forces—even if they wanted to. This is an alarming situation that threatens the country’s fundamental national security. If only 29 percent of the nation’s young adults are qualified to serve, and if this trend continues, it is inevitable that the U.S. military will suffer from a lack of manpower. A manpower shortage in the United States Armed Forces directly compromises national security.

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Farmer77

[Unusual Tournament]

23 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeeees... umm... aren't ALL Presidents like that ? I mean.. that's democracy for you ? 

It would seem so. Often we expect our leaders to have bigger ideals and morals than the rest and how often we're disappointed.