No government required

[ABikerSailor]

Paying wartime tax rates, Proves we do.

Proves we do....what? Don’t just take what I say and repeat it back to me because you’ve been thoroughly defeated by facts here. You claimed we had too much defense. September 11, 2001 proved otherwise.

Quick question there dude....................exactly HOW would the military have stopped 9/11? There was zero military involved. They were civilian terrorists who slipped through the cracks and didn't arouse much suspicion with their actions to either the local police OR the FBI.

So................again.......................HOW would a stronger military have prevented 9/11?

not stronger; more "decisive" leadership was required; enough to "endure the consequences" of actually shooting down airliners "before they reach their target".

By the time they had located the aircraft that would be used for an attack, it was too late to shoot them down. First indication we had that there was something going on was when the first plane smacked into the WTC. But, a lot of people were at first thinking (much like myself), that it was pilot error. At least, until the second plane smacked into the other tower. THEN it became apparent that an attack was going on.

They then had to locate and land all the other planes. The one over PA was taken over by the passengers because some of them had heard about the attack on the WTC, which is why they decided to crash it somewhere away from people.

By the time they located the plane that was to hit the Pentagon? It was too late to shoot it down, because it was over a densely populated area, and shooting it down over the city would have resulted not only in the loss of life on the plane, but also in the crash sites on the ground.

So, again I ask, how would a stronger military have prevented the attacks on 9/11? Short answer? It wouldn't.

Each time you post danielpalos, you show me even more how little you know about the military and how it operates.

The aircraft had to be "on somebodies radar while entering restricted airspace". I agree there was not much time to act.

Actually, the original restricted airspace wouldn't have had enough time for a jet to be scrambled and intercepted before it hit the Pentagon, because it was originally only around 15 km, and 15 km can be covered quite quickly by something flying at around 500 mph, meaning there wouldn't have been enough time, ESPECIALLY if they waited until it violated restricted airspace.

The airspace around DC now? Maybe, because it has been greatly expanded since 2004 when they made a new act governing it.

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area - Wikipedia

Again, you show woeful ignorance of what the military can and cannot do.

 

[danielpalos]

Proves we do....what? Don’t just take what I say and repeat it back to me because you’ve been thoroughly defeated by facts here. You claimed we had too much defense. September 11, 2001 proved otherwise.

Quick question there dude....................exactly HOW would the military have stopped 9/11? There was zero military involved. They were civilian terrorists who slipped through the cracks and didn't arouse much suspicion with their actions to either the local police OR the FBI.

So................again.......................HOW would a stronger military have prevented 9/11?

not stronger; more "decisive" leadership was required; enough to "endure the consequences" of actually shooting down airliners "before they reach their target".

By the time they had located the aircraft that would be used for an attack, it was too late to shoot them down. First indication we had that there was something going on was when the first plane smacked into the WTC. But, a lot of people were at first thinking (much like myself), that it was pilot error. At least, until the second plane smacked into the other tower. THEN it became apparent that an attack was going on.

They then had to locate and land all the other planes. The one over PA was taken over by the passengers because some of them had heard about the attack on the WTC, which is why they decided to crash it somewhere away from people.

By the time they located the plane that was to hit the Pentagon? It was too late to shoot it down, because it was over a densely populated area, and shooting it down over the city would have resulted not only in the loss of life on the plane, but also in the crash sites on the ground.

So, again I ask, how would a stronger military have prevented the attacks on 9/11? Short answer? It wouldn't.

Each time you post danielpalos, you show me even more how little you know about the military and how it operates.

The aircraft had to be "on somebodies radar while entering restricted airspace". I agree there was not much time to act.

Actually, the original restricted airspace wouldn't have had enough time for a jet to be scrambled and intercepted before it hit the Pentagon, because it was originally only around 15 km, and 15 km can be covered quite quickly by something flying at around 500 mph, meaning there wouldn't have been enough time, ESPECIALLY if they waited until it violated restricted airspace.

The airspace around DC now? Maybe, because it has been greatly expanded since 2004 when they made a new act governing it.

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area - Wikipedia

Again, you show woeful ignorance of what the military can and cannot do.

no air defense capability?

the question was, was it a military issue where the object cannot be allowed to reach its target, or a civilian operation; where greater care must be taken.

 

[P@triot]

Why blame welfare recipients.

Because they are unconstitutionally stealing from the American tax payer.

Providing for the General Welfare is a General power, not a common power like the common defense.

As we’ve already established hundreds of times, the “general welfare” clause specifically refers to the 18 enumerated powers.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

 

[danielpalos]

Why blame welfare recipients.

Because they are unconstitutionally stealing from the American tax payer.

Providing for the General Welfare is a General power, not a common power like the common defense.

As we’ve already established hundreds of times, the “general welfare” clause specifically refers to the 18 enumerated powers.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

That Only applies to the Republicans. End the drug war. or, why bother us with Your useless doctrine.

 

[P@triot]

I claim the defense industry "is mooching off the taxpayer", not the Poor.

Thankfully for the American people, what you claim is irrelevant. What matters is the U.S. Constitution - which made defense a responsibility of the federal government. It did no such thing for the “poor”.

 

[P@triot]

End the drug war. or, why bother us with Your useless doctrine.

Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats had a super-majority in 2009 - 2010. They refused to end the drug war. You applauded. Why?

 

[danielpalos]

I claim the defense industry "is mooching off the taxpayer", not the Poor.

Thankfully for the American people, what you claim is irrelevant. What matters is the U.S. Constitution - which made defense a responsibility of the federal government. It did no such thing for the “poor”.

the power to provide for the general welfare is General; the power to provide for the common defense is common.

 

[danielpalos]

End the drug war. or, why bother us with Your useless doctrine.

Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats had a super-majority in 2009 - 2010. They refused to end the drug war. You applauded. Why?

No, I didn't. You claim the republican doctrine is limited to the specifically enumerated powers; the democrats don't have their own doctrine and resort to the federal doctrine.

 

[Oddball]

the power to provide for the general welfare is General; the power to provide for the common defense is common.

 

[danielpalos]

the power to provide for the general welfare is General; the power to provide for the common defense is common.

View attachment 219793

bright kid. too bad she didn't get to criticize You.

 

[P@triot]

the democrats don't have their own doctrine...

Did you really just say that? Did you really say something that stupid?

 

[P@triot]

End the drug war. or, why bother us with Your useless doctrine.

Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats had a super-majority in 2009 - 2010. They refused to end the drug war. You applauded. Why?

No, I didn't.

Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats had a super-majority in 2009 - 2010. They refused to end the drug war. You applauded. Why?

 

[danielpalos]

the democrats don't have their own doctrine...

Did you really just say that? Did you really say something that stupid?

it is the federal doctrine not the democrat doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

End the drug war. or, why bother us with Your useless doctrine.

Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats had a super-majority in 2009 - 2010. They refused to end the drug war. You applauded. Why?

No, I didn't.

Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats had a super-majority in 2009 - 2010. They refused to end the drug war. You applauded. Why?

I should have been paying more attention; I didn't recognize it. And, I have been against the drug war since I started arguing politics.

I am a federalist.

And, the democrats were busy passing healthcare reform. They should have ended the drug war at the same time, to help pay for it.

 

[P@triot]

the democrats don't have their own doctrine...

Did you really just say that? Did you really say something that stupid?

it is the federal doctrine not the democrat doctrine.

The Dumbocrat doctrine is to violate all federal doctrine in their quest for power and control.

 

[danielpalos]

the democrats don't have their own doctrine...

Did you really just say that? Did you really say something that stupid?

it is the federal doctrine not the democrat doctrine.

The Dumbocrat doctrine is to violate all federal doctrine in their quest for power and control.

unlike the right wing where everything is justified for the "common defense" and virtually nothing for the general welfare.

 

[P@triot]

the democrats don't have their own doctrine...

Did you really just say that? Did you really say something that stupid?

it is the federal doctrine not the democrat doctrine.

The Dumbocrat doctrine is to violate all federal doctrine in their quest for power and control.

unlike the right wing where everything is justified for the "common defense" and virtually nothing for the general welfare.

Everything is justified by the "General Welfare", so long as they are within the strict confines of the 18 enumerated powers.

 

[P@triot]

Once again we see the private sector working flawlessly - without government intervention. We also see the astounding ignorance of left-wing policy in this article (hint...the $15 minimum wage isn't working out so well for them )

Here’s how Amazon’s $15 minimum wage could cause some employees to earn less

 

[danielpalos]

the democrats don't have their own doctrine...

Did you really just say that? Did you really say something that stupid?

it is the federal doctrine not the democrat doctrine.

The Dumbocrat doctrine is to violate all federal doctrine in their quest for power and control.

unlike the right wing where everything is justified for the "common defense" and virtually nothing for the general welfare.

Everything is justified by the "General Welfare", so long as they are within the strict confines of the 18 enumerated powers.

lol. you right wingers can't faithfully execute the Republican Doctrine. why should the left, take you seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

Once again we see the private sector working flawlessly - without government intervention. We also see the astounding ignorance of left-wing policy in this article (hint...the $15 minimum wage isn't working out so well for them )

Here’s how Amazon’s $15 minimum wage could cause some employees to earn less

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time