More Liberal BS.

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
First of all, read your constitution rather than pull ideas from others writings.



The individual states cannot have a standing (paid) army (militia) without congressional approval. At no point did the framers intend us to be indefensible.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Sounds like the founders didn't want a standing army being established.

No Appropriations for longer than two years for the raising and support of Armies. Probably land forces, as the navy is mentioned separately.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Last point conceded to Brutal.

I never interpreted it that way, but it does seem clear. I hate eating shit.
Thank you

as far as eating shit, it's not eating shit if you can admit you are wrong, it's if you continue to dig into that pile even after being told its shit.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
To be fair, that section does not forbid a standing army outright, only that appropriations for the army must be renewed every two years.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
One would imagine that it would limit a standing army though, no?

Or at least that it was meant to.
That was definitely the purpose.
Maybe you'd care to contribute to the thread instead of just posting random bits of prose that have absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.
Yeah, and the multiple commas thing is pretty annoying too. Do you hit the comma button by accident and are too lazy to go back,,,or what?
 

what... huh?

Active Member
Thank you

as far as eating shit, it's not eating shit if you can admit you are wrong, it's if you continue to dig into that pile even after being told its shit.

It's not being wrong so much... which I also don't like... it is about being smug about reading the constitution, and then being so blatantly wrong. That sucks.
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
The naysayers will always be just that; losers.

America is the most successful, and benevolent, collection of human beings ever to inhabit the earth. Our wealth, created by hard work and ingenuity (freedom), serve as an example for the rest of the world to follow. Our surpluses, given enthusiastically, feed and cloth the teaming masses of the world. We ended the world wide scourge of slavery (a scourge that many American Indian tribes embraced, long before the white man could have taught it to them). A scourge that existed since the beginning of recorded human history. We did this by fighting a bloody civil war where brother fought brother. We did it because of our founding documents and the self evident truths contained therein.

You only miss it (freedom) when it's gone, and it's leaving the station as we speak. I know many patriotic, freedom loving Americans know this. And it gives me hope. We'll do what is right, just as we've always endeavored to do, as a people.

God damn the haters, the destroyers, and the naysayers. Should I go on?

BENEVOLENT? LMAO!!!!! What America are you living in? Ever watch the evening news? It's far from a "benevolent" society we're living in.

Benevolent... ROLF!
 

what... huh?

Active Member
We are benevolent.

We are the richest, most powerful nation ever to exist on the planet, and we are not imperialists. We give more foreign aid than any other nation, which is not to say that we give the greatest percentage of our GNP. We still give the most, by leagues. We are a capitalist nation, and believe very soundly in it, yet we still are charitable.

This nation is benevolent... and self serving... as all benevolent figures are.

80% of the money Mother Teresa collected went to the church, not the poor. Expanding the church.

She also took that money from genocidal war criminals. Was she not benevolent?

The Dali Lama wants Tibet back because he was a king. The leader of an elite class of monks who were served by all others. He wants his cult back. Is he not benevolent?

Muhatma Gandhi was a racist who felt blacks were subhuman and wanted them segregated from Indians. Was he benevolent?

It is easy to look to flaws and suggest that they define a person or group... but I don't think it is that black and white.

How many people would die every year without US aid, doctors without borders, peace corps, red cross... ? How many lives do we save still serving our self interests? Are we not benevolent?
 
Top