Rand: I'm Looking Into Military Takeover

[Contumacious]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

INCORRECT.

IN ORDER TO PREVENT STANDING ARMIES THE FOUNDING FATHERS ADOPTED

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it states that The Congress shall have Power

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


BUT THE CONGRESSCRITTERS FOUND OUT THAT AMERICANS ARE STUPID SO THEY IGNORE THAT PROVISION .


.

 

[rightwinger]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

INCORRECT.

IN ORDER TO PREVENT STANDING ARMIES THE FOUNDING FATHERS ADOPTED

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it states that The Congress shall have Power

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


BUT THE CONGRESSCRITTERS FOUND OUT THAT AMERICANS ARE STUPID SO THEY IGNORE THAT PROVISION .


.

What makes you think appropriations are longer than two years?

 

[Contumacious]

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

One of the areas where they were not very bright

They also supported slavery and opposed equal rights for women

WHY ARE STANDING ARMIES NECESSARY?


.

Because we are a modern society who is deeply entrenched in global affairs

Those militias just din't cut it. Even in the Revolutionary War, militias sucked

BECAUSE WE ARE A MILITARY STATE WHO LOVES TO INTERVENE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS - WHILE PLACING OUR CITIZENS IN HARMS WAY.


.

Why are you shouting?

Inside voice....inside voice

I HAVE NO CHOICE - I AM TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH RETARDS.

 

[Contumacious]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

INCORRECT.

IN ORDER TO PREVENT STANDING ARMIES THE FOUNDING FATHERS ADOPTED

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it states that The Congress shall have Power

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


BUT THE CONGRESSCRITTERS FOUND OUT THAT AMERICANS ARE STUPID SO THEY IGNORE THAT PROVISION .


.

What makes you think appropriations are longer than two years?

WE HAVE HAD A CONTINUOUS WARFARE STATE SINCE IT WAS CREATED BY WOODROW WILSON IN 1914.


.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the areas where they were not very bright

They also supported slavery and opposed equal rights for women

WHY ARE STANDING ARMIES NECESSARY?


.

Because we are a modern society who is deeply entrenched in global affairs

Those militias just din't cut it. Even in the Revolutionary War, militias sucked

BECAUSE WE ARE A MILITARY STATE WHO LOVES TO INTERVENE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS - WHILE PLACING OUR CITIZENS IN HARMS WAY.


.

Why are you shouting?

Inside voice....inside voice

I HAVE NO CHOICE - I AM TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH RETARDS.

Large fonts do not make your point more valid. They only make you look like an asshole

 

[Vandalshandle]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

INCORRECT.

IN ORDER TO PREVENT STANDING ARMIES THE FOUNDING FATHERS ADOPTED

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it states that The Congress shall have Power

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


BUT THE CONGRESSCRITTERS FOUND OUT THAT AMERICANS ARE STUPID SO THEY IGNORE THAT PROVISION .


.

But not too stupid to ignore you!

So, I say this, about that:
"Break out the cigars! This life is for squirrels! we're off to the drugstore to whistle at girls!"

(Walt Kelly)

 

[Contumacious]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

INCORRECT.

IN ORDER TO PREVENT STANDING ARMIES THE FOUNDING FATHERS ADOPTED

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it states that The Congress shall have Power

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


BUT THE CONGRESSCRITTERS FOUND OUT THAT AMERICANS ARE STUPID SO THEY IGNORE THAT PROVISION .


.

But not too stupid to ignore you!

So, I say this, about that:
"Break out the cigars! This life is for squirrels! we're off to the drugstore to whistle at girls!"

(Walt Kelly)

IN THE US PARASITISM TRUMPS LIBERTY.


.

 

[Contumacious]

WHY ARE STANDING ARMIES NECESSARY?


.

Because we are a modern society who is deeply entrenched in global affairs

Those militias just din't cut it. Even in the Revolutionary War, militias sucked

BECAUSE WE ARE A MILITARY STATE WHO LOVES TO INTERVENE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS - WHILE PLACING OUR CITIZENS IN HARMS WAY.


.

Why are you shouting?

Inside voice....inside voice

I HAVE NO CHOICE - I AM TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH RETARDS.

Large fonts do not make your point more valid. They only make you look like an asshole

AN ASSHOLE MEANS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH ME - A FACT WHICH WE ALREADY KNOW SINCE YOU ARE A STATE SUPREMACIST PARASITE.


.

 

[g5000]

This just in: President Eisenhower nukes Nevada as US troops invade!

 

[mamooth]

The FEMA DeathDomes that are popping up across Texas are clearly linked to Jade Helm.



Here in Indianapolis, we have a FEMA Death Camp at the Beech Grove Amtrak Yard. That's where they muster the FEMA Death Trains that will roll into Walmart.

 

[g5000]

Clearly Ike was conducting an unconstitutional military exercise inside our borders which was practice for nuking American cities.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Is there a full moon somewhere right now?

In Nutterland, the Moon is always full.

 

[FA_Q2]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

INCORRECT.

IN ORDER TO PREVENT STANDING ARMIES THE FOUNDING FATHERS ADOPTED

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it states that The Congress shall have Power

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


BUT THE CONGRESSCRITTERS FOUND OUT THAT AMERICANS ARE STUPID SO THEY IGNORE THAT PROVISION .


.

Incorrect. They do not ignore that part of the constitution; they follow it to the letter. Every 2 years they re-appropriate those funds. Noting in the constitution prevents this.

The founders may have wanted this to prevent standing armies but the constitution does not. NOWHERE in the constitution does it state that standing armies are prohibited. This would normally not be an issue as the constitution is not a list of things the government cannot do but rather a list of limited powers that the government has so under normal circumstances such a stament would not be needed. HOWEVER, the constitution also gives the federal government the explicit power to raise and fund those armies.
IOW, it has the power to create an army and it also has the power to indefinitely fund it providing that it is authored every 2 years as the constitution specifically limits the power to fund that army to this period of time. The founders could have authored it in a way to prevent standing armies entirely by limiting that power – they did not.


Whether or not the founders wanted standing armies is really irrelevant when the black and white of the constitution clearly gives the government the power to do what it is doing (at least in reference to funding armies).

Please turn your shouting down when responding to this post – the big bold letters are a bother to read.

 

[Statistikhengst]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

No reason to answer a question like his because the US Constitution clearly mandates a standing army, and also funds it.

 

[FA_Q2]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE

You see this, class?

A claim is made ("Jade Helm is unconstitutional") and the claimant is saying it is true until disproven. This is a favorite tactic of retards who cannot prove their claims and so they attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. In this case, the claimant is unable to prove Jade Helm is unconstitutional, and thus throws up a logical fallacy to cover his inability to do so.

This logical fallacy is appropriately called the Argument from Ignorance

Question #1

MR DINGLE BERRY

IS IT A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE COLONISTS OPPOSED STANDING ARMIES?!?!?!?!!?

.



.

You understand you are not going to get a response from them, correct? They are not interested in meaningful discussion.

I have to ask though – why is this statement even relevant. What if they did oppose standing armies? They wrote a constitution that directly allowed them to create one. Until that is rectified, the federal government has the ability to have a standing army in existence.

No reason to answer a question like his because the US Constitution clearly mandates a standing army, and also funds it.

I would not say that it mandates – just allows the federal government the power to create one.

I do not think it was mandated as there has not always been a real standing army.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show of hands, who thinks it's OK for government to run military exercises within our own borders?

Does it hurt to be this stupid?

Boot licking Obama Fluffing fucking fascist

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since light is a GOOD disinfectant:

March to martial law Undercover Special Forces to sweep US Southwest RT USA

As elite branches of the US military prepare to hold military training in seven southwest states, with some troops operating incognito among civilians, some Americans fear the training is actually preparation for imposing martial law.

Operation Jade Helm, which is scheduled to kick off in July and run for eight weeks, will involve the participation of 1,200 troops from the US military’s most elite fighting forces, including Green Berets, Navy SEALS and Special Operations from the Air Force and Marines.

The troops will be participating in what has been called Realistic Military Training in towns in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Utah.

In an effort to simulate the type of battlefield conditions soldiers may face in foreign countries, the US military has designated the remote training areas where they will operate as in a “hostile" territory, a description that has irked some residents.

Meanwhile, Texans living in close proximity to the operation will be asked to report any “suspicious activity” during the exercise, a request that seems to contradict the belief laid out in the US military training document, leaked by The Houston Chronicle, that Texans are “historically supportive” of military efforts to “fight the enemies of the United States.”

The training exercise, according to Shadow Spear, a publication of USASOC, “will be conducted on private and public land with the permission of the private landowners, and from state and local authorities.”

Information about this that been out for more than one month now.

Really, Righttards are unbelievably slow on the gun, and fucking unpatriotic, too.

The wargames are there to help our military and it was announced well in advance.

There was once a time when Righties actually supported the military.

we don't support Fascism, there's a difference that lost on Nazi Boot licking Progressives

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's alarming is our Progressives openly embrac Fascism

Show of hands, who thinks it's OK for government to run military exercises within our own borders?

Ummmmmm....they have been doing it for 200 years

So it would have been OK for Bush to conduct military exercises in Baltimore, Detroit and NYC? really? You OK with that?

I walk through Grand Central everyday and it's already looking like a military dictatorship

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember the (in)famous response by Rummy:

Q. Army Spc. Thomas Wilson: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don;t we have those resources readily available to us?

A. Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up...

So today we have a military & CIC who put in a great deal of thought BEFORE putting our sons and daughters into harms way, and what better environment to prepare for the next war than to test strategy, tactics and equipment in a very similar environment, the American Southwest.

That would explain why Iraq, Libya, Syria and Egypt are such rousing successes

 

[g5000]

Show of hands, who thinks it's OK for government to run military exercises within our own borders?

Does it hurt to be this stupid?

Boot licking Obama Fluffing fucking fascist

I'll put that down as a "Yes".