ya wanna see some stoooopid?

[sirs]

It's the function of those that participate in the saloon, to facilitate debate.  At least it used to be.  So sad

[BT]

Yes opining on subjects you know nothing about and when gently pointed in the direction of enlightenment you demand that i provide your education for you.

Help your self conservative.

[Christians4LessGvt]

CU can't afford anything.

You're right....and in this economy the American People can't afford Solyndra!

Solyndra Employee: You Wonder Where All the Money Went

[sirs]

Yes opining on subjects you know nothing about and when gently pointed in the direction of enlightenment you demand that i provide your education for you.

Help your self conservative.

Opining on positions one fully supports is hardly opining on subjects one no nothing about, and reminding those, who apparently forget that this is a debate forum, that its somehow helpful if one is trying to claim X, to actually explain why, vs some generic "go fish" as in go google it

Helpful hints moderate

[BT]

Arpanet research was funded to solve a military problem. That it would have a secondary use was not part of the discussion until the military problem was solved. Now unless you are saying that military expenditures that would save lives and shorten armed conflicts would not be constitutional, one can only surmise that you did not know what arpanet was.

"Opining on positions one fully supports is hardly opining on subjects one no nothing about"

In this case it looks like it is.

[sirs]

Actually, it wasn't, since my discussion was on the valididty of Federal expenditures, that are not clearly the pervue of the Fed, as outlined in the Consitutition.  That Arpnet had an unintended 2ndary use, NOT related to the military, is precisely the expenditures of tax dollars, unneeded nor, supported by any Constitutional mandates

Glad we got that cleared up

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your constant trumpeting that you won an argument that you clearly have lost is getting old.

[BT]

That Arpnet had an unintended 2ndary use, NOT related to the military, is precisely the expenditures of tax dollars, unneeded nor, supported by any Constitutional mandates

Well golly gee beaver, how would you know that there could be a secondary use, until you successfully fulfilled the mission assigned by the military and paid for with tax dollars. Constitutionally and well within provide for the common defense clause.

And if the technology had other uses well good for us.

[sirs]

One more time, if the Military's objectives turned out a 2ndary non-military application, by all means, anyone BUT the Government can make that into whatever success they think they can, with THEIR money and THEIR efforts.  So sayeth the Constitution, in what the Fed can and can't do.  Their failures also remain limited to them and their investors....NOT the TAXPAYERS

[BT]

And who is stating that once the technology behind the internet (arpanet) was implemented, that the private sector didn't invest their own money and time into expanding it into what it is today.

Companies like Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy who built a user base. And companies like Hayes and US Robotics who built modems that allowed people to dial in to the internet. And the PC makers who saw the magic of putting into the hands of indibvgiduals the processing power that took us to the moon.

Secondary use. Private capital.

[sirs]

And who is stating that once the technology behind the internet (arpanet) was implemented, that the private sector didn't invest their own money and time into expanding it into what it is today.

No one.....are you purposely not paying attention?   

[BT]

Actually I am. Why did you state that the investment in Arpanet was not as constitutional as the Manhattan Project.

And why reply #35, if it was clear that Arpanet was funded by taxpayer money?

It was clear from the onset that you had no clue as to what Arpanet was, because if you did, you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

[sirs]

Actually I am.

That's kinda what I thought. 

And why reply #35, if it was clear that Arpanet was funded by taxpayer money? .........

......FOR A MILITARY OBJECTIVE.  ONCE THAT OBJECTIVE HAD BEEN MET, THERE IS NO FURTHER CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OR OBLIGATION FOR FUTHER TAXPAYERS $$$$'s

Yea, we're done here.  I think we can move on now

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Interstate Highway System was designed as a National Defense item. They did not stop building after the goals of national defense were met. Why should the Internet be any different?

[sirs]

I'd love to see the evidence that our interstate system was facilitated as a military objective, but leaving that bit of unsupported claim aside, the commerce clause, and its relation to interstate shipping fits kinda ok, within the Constitution.  Further investing in nothing more than a PC vehicle does not....much less the internet.  By all means, invest in what's needed to guard against terrorist cyber attacks, but that would be the extent of Federal involvement