One that offers no protection to Americans, no less.
Why would we leave our 51st state?
Also I fucking love Archer. Such an underrated show.
3 Likes
That show is genius on so many levels.
Also the show with the world’s most sadistic drinking game (or is that masochism?).
1 Like
Archer is incredible but I have to state my opinion that they jumped the shark in the last season or two with gimmicky setting changes.
2 Likes
Agreed. I loved the Noir season, but it hasn’t grasped me since.
Maybe they’ll find out Don Lemon is gay.
1 Like
Is Trump maybe thinking he can afford this if the US gets out of Afghanistan, and also lowers military flexing overall? I wonder if maybe hard ball talk with Iran is mostly bluster.
He’s thinking military spending is an endless black hole of funding.
Democrats don’t really care about the budget and Republicans REEEEEALLY don’t care about responsible defense spending. War Hawking is hella profitable, and all of this work is being contracted out to pol buddies anyways.
Super smart move imo.
You mean 60% of discretionary spending? While we spend 65% of the entire budget on safety net programs? They’re both ridiculous, but when we’re talking magnitude…
And growing every year Republicans have the oval, yeah.
There are number of scenarios where this would make sense to compare. Having a War going on (hint: endless war on drugs and Hispanics aren’t actually wars), having an enemy anywhere on the planet matching our spending, being in viable threat range to any major enemies, etcetcetc.
I like a good whataboutism just as much as the next guy, but you went shooting for Mars here.
I’ll take a 35% defense spending cut in exchange for a 10% safety net spending cut. Deal?
1 Like
Shit man I’ll give you either one of those for free.
But I’d prefer to match you % for %
1 Like
The problem with that is, the same people lose money with either option.
States rights shtates shmrites. Local is always allowed to be more restrictive than state or federal. He is just wasting time and money with this bullshit.
While I believe, given the Constitution, states should be able to make any laws they want, why shouldn’t the United States overrule states when it comes to this? The Bill of Rights guarantees that the Federal Government can’t make laws restricting arms, but it does so anyway. Why shouldn’t the Federal Government do what it wants when it comes to something that isn’t explicitly protected by the Constitution?
Because
@pfury, as I pointed out, we’re well beyond that time. It hasn’t been that way for many, many years(and that’s assuming it was EVER that way other than in theory). No one alive was there for it.
I was pointing out that you answered your own question.
Q: Why shouldn’t the federal govt do what it wants.
Nick’s Answer: because I think states should be able to make any laws they want.
Okay. Ideally, that would be the case. Ideally, the U.S. would be at least two countries now. As it is, there’s no reason to bring up “state’s rights” just because Trump did something. Gotta hate those slavery advocates in California.