APP - Report: NASA can't keep up with killer asteroids

[Epicurus]

Okay I don't see it that way. As I said like 2 pages ago: agree to disagree.

We're beating a dead horse here. Interesting argument though.

 

[Damocles]

Okay I don't see it that way. As I said like 2 pages ago: agree to disagree.

We're beating a dead horse here. Interesting argument though.

I think you are willfully not seeing it.

IMO, it's like saying that submarines don't have a national security use because some of them perform research. That ships have no mission because there is research done on some of them (yes even military ones). It just makes no sense to ignore the fact that other nations use space directly for military missions (again examples, intel gathering and targeting) and say that there is none for the US because research is also done there.

But okay, agree to disagree.

 

[DamnYankee]

Wow, this thread demonstrates with perfect clarity the absolute hypocrisy, and total lack of any consistent ideological foundation of movement conservatives.

The only time I ever hear Cons whining about the "limitations" of the enumerated powers, is when tax dollars are spent on the welfare of the american people. Healthcare, food stamps, social security.

But, in a horrific display of bad tap dancing, now everything from the National Parks, to the National Weather Service, to NASA scientific research, is deemed appropriate federal expenditures in the name of "national security".

Man, why don't you just give up talking about the "limitations" of the enumerated tax and spend powers. This is the most broad interpretation of the national defense clause I've ever heard. Virtually anything can be defined as national security. Some "limited" government. LOL.


Man this thread was funny.

Let's face it. Cons are totally inconsistent.

The national parks are not a national security issue.

 

[Damocles]

The national parks are not a national security issue.

I fully agree. The ruling on it by the SCOTUS was incredibly convoluted twisting in order to rule that the US could keep using eminent domain to scoop up properties for this purpose. It was clear as you read it that they were writing a ruling based on what they wanted rather than what was law.

Link

On January 27, 1896, Justice Rufus Wheeler Peckham of the United States Supreme Court handed down the court's unanimous decision. His language was eloquent and reflects the spirit of the time:

The end to be attained, by this proposed use, as provided for by the act of Congress, is legitimate, and lies within the scope of the constitution. The battle of Gettysburg was one of the great battles of the world. The numbers contained in the opposing armies were great; the sacrifices of life was dreadful; while the bravery, and, indeed, heroism displayed by both contending forces, rank with the highest exhibition of these qualities ever made by man. The importance of the issue involved in the contest of which this great battle was a part cannot be overestimated. The existence of the government itself, and the perpetuity of our institutions depended upon the result... .Can it be that the government is without power to preserve the land, and properly mark out the various sites upon which this struggle took place? Can it not erect the monuments provided for by these acts of Congress, or even take possession of the field of battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country, for the present and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use, but one so closely connected with the welfare of the republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country.

By this resounding decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of acquiring private property by right of eminent domain for Gettysburg National Park and established the principle that the preservation of nationally important historic sites and buildings is a legitimate purpose of the Government of the United States.

 

[DamnYankee]

I fully agree. The ruling on it by the SCOTUS was incredibly convoluted twisting in order to rule that the US could keep using eminent domain to scoop up properties for this purpose. It was clear as you read it that they were writing a ruling based on what they wanted rather than what was law.

We have land trusts here and they're buying properties all along the Blue Ridge parkway and such. I say more power to them as long as they pay market prices of the land is freely donated. But to use eminent domain for that is fucked up.