Why are conservatives clueless about our Constitution?

[rightwinger]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

Yeah are you full of it:

From Article I, Section VIII, where the Congress’ explicit powers are named:

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

From Article II, Section II, where the powers of the President are defined:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States;

Nice try, but as usual, your grasp of the Constitution comes from liberal liars who want to get around the Constitution.

And before you go on about the every two years thing in the first part, you better go back to your Democrats. THEY ARE THE ONES THE REFUSE TO PASS A BUDGET AND GO ON WITH CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

You lose all around.



Damn It's easy kicking liberal butt!

So much bullshit propaganda....so little time

There is not a requirement in the Constitution for a standing Army(To raise and support Armies). There is one for the Navy (To provide and maintain a Navy). Congress has the authority to establish one and fund it. There is no Constitutional mandate to do so

Regardless....there was a strong need to establish "Well regulated militias"

 

[Dad2three]

OK....lets go there

Spending cuts in exchange for tax increases
Cuts in the Military in exchange for cuts in social spending
Immigration reform in return for tighter border security
Alternate energy investment in return for increased drilling rights

I'm game....you willing to COMPROMISE?

What about ABORTION????

What about gay rights?

And I've seen you libs "compromise" on cutting spending in exchange for tax increases.

The tax increases are immediate, the spending cuts never come, they are only promised.

Which spending cuts were promised? By whom and when?

Weird, Clinton had 4 (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) surpluses with nearly 20% of GDP in revenues, the GOP gets into office with Dubya, gut revenues (TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS, LESS THAN 15% OF GDP) with 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (NOT cutting spending), ramps up spending with 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, but the conservatives whine about the Dems? lol

Do you all remember, NO new taxes???

Bush (41) agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts to go to bringing down the deficit. NOT ONE DIME WAS EVER USED TO DO THAT!

The Democrats lied to Bush, promising they would if he agreed to the tax increase.

Instead they used the broken promise (regardless of the fact they broke their promise) against Bush in the 92 election.

Which is FUNNY, because Clinton ALSO PROMISED TO CUT TAXES.

Instead he raised them retroactive to Jan 1, 1993.

But liberals were quiet about that broken promise.

I have a very LONG memory of liberals agreeing to cut spending.

Haven't seen them cut a dime yet.

Liars, every last one of them.

BTW, the surplus happened because Republicans forced a capital gains tax cut on Clinton. The very thing Bush 41 said would fix the recession but Democrats refused to go along with in '90.

If you will remember, Clinton's own CBO projected deficits clear into 2010 before the Republicans won in 1994. The surplus happened AFTER they took control and forced Clinton to sign a bill cutting capital gains.

"Bush (41) agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts to go to bringing down the deficit. NOT ONE DIME WAS EVER USED TO DO THAT!"


LINK?

"because Clinton ALSO PROMISED TO CUT TAXES."

LINK?

Mr. Clinton refuses to make the kind of absolute pledge against raising taxes on the middle class that Mr. Bush made during the 1988 campaign.

"If the money doesn't come in, then we ought to find some other part of the budget to cut or we ought to phase in the programs over a longer period of time," he said Thursday on the NBC News program "Today."
THE 1992 CAMPAIGN Taxes Clinton Promises to Protect Middle Class on Taxes - New York Times


So the surplus WASN'T because Clinton/Dems cut the deficits in 1993 AND created new revenues with tax increases, it was because of the GOP when not ONE GOPer voted for Clinton's 1993 bill?

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit." — Goldman Sachs, March 1998

ABOUT THE $700+ BILLION TAX CUT CLINTON HAD TO VETO? OR THE PROOF ONCE DUBYA GOT INTO OFFICE, THE GOP'S PLAN WAS SPEND, SPEND, SPEND WHILE GUTTING REVENUES?

Starve the beast sound familiar? lol

Yeah, it was the GOP who is fiscally responsible *shaking head*

Wow, you have a short memory:

In 1990, Washington, D.C., was in a panic. The deficit would kill us all. The Japanese (the Chinese of the era) would eat our lunch. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade. Democrats and Republicans in Washington just had to do something, said the mainstream media. Wars, natural-disaster relief, and bailouts were handled without regard to looming entitlement crises. Tax increases were obviously on the table for anyone with half a brain. Sound familiar?

Back then, the solution was practical and obvious to Beltway types, who had been here before in 1982’s TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) tax hike: Democrats would promise future spending cuts in exchange for Republicans’ agreeing to immediate tax increases.

That’s exactly what happened. In October of 1990, Pres. George H. W. Bush agreed to a five-year, $137 billion tax increase. In exchange, House speaker Tom Foley (D., Wash.) and Senate majority leader George Mitchell (D., Me.) promised to cut spending by $274 billion over the FY1991–1995 period. In total, this $2-for-$1 deal was supposed to cut the budget deficit by $411 billion over this budget window. Almost three-quarters of the House GOP conference — 126 representatives — voted against their president’s deal, citing the promise they had made to their constituents when they signed the then-new “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” maintained by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. It was not enough. Washington had won, and taxpayers had lost.

The deal turned out to be a disaster for President Bush. By breaking his “read my lips” promise at a summit with Congressional Democrats (famously held at Andrews Air Force Base), he lost his political support and likely the 1992 election. Undoing the seminal Tax Reform Act of 1986, he raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent — and also phased out some deductions and exemptions. He hiked Medicare payroll taxes. He raised excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, beer, wine, and other common goods. He famously added a 10 percent “luxury tax” on yachts, which had to be repealed three years later since all it served to do was put boat makers out of business, causing layoffs.

These tax hikes became a setup for the 1993 Clinton tax hikes, the cornerstone of which was raising the top individual rate to 39.6 percent, the level President Obama wants to return to after the 2012 elections. In many ways, the conservative movement is still paying the price for Papa Bush’s stupid mistake.

Surely, though, all those spending cuts must have done some good; after all, the deal promised twice as much in spending cuts as it delivered in tax increases. Think again. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected before the deal that 1991–1995 spending would total $7.07 trillion. In fact, total spending for this period was $7.09 trillion. In other words, in return for agreeing to tax hikes, Republicans got $22 billion in extra spending rather than the promised $274 billion in cuts. This was despite the fact that there was another “spending cut” deal in 1993 — the Clinton tax-increase budget.

Read My Lips Won t Happen Again National Review Online

Got it, instead of being HONEST, you choose the typical right wing slight of hand

Spending NEVER goes down, the spending cuts they talk about was PROJECTED growth of spending. And they delivered!

Weird how Reagan had a top rate of 50% the first 6 years but gutted revenues by going to 28% and left the S&L crisis and lack of revenues for Poppy and Clinton to clean up right?

 

[Dad2three]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

see...i told you RW is ignorant of the constitution:

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....

good lord you are stupid person RW

lol, DOESN'T refute his posit, which was true, the Founders were concerned with standing armies, liar! At the time, the 'regular army' as nonexistent!


Armies in that context WAS militia. Who do you think Washington used to defeat the conservative up-risers in Shay's rebellion?

there is no standing army clause? really? what the **** do you think raise and army means? and for two years...that is a standing army. good lord, no wonder RW is running from these posts.

Got it, you don't understand what a standing Army was or is. Thanks anyways Bubba

 

[Yurt]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

LOL...RW is now backtracking claiming there merely was no requirement to raise armies

LOOOL

no wonder he is ignoring all the truths against his bullshit

 

[Dad2three]

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

Except of course that you're lying.

The militia was not "state run," but rather an armed populace who would rise to meet threats.

Since leftists ARE the gravest threat to the nation, I understand your desire to disarm the populace.

{
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.}

10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia composition and classes LII Legal Information Institute

Under WHOSE direction? Oops

 

[rightwinger]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

see...i told you RW is ignorant of the constitution:

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....

good lord you are stupid person RW

lol, DOESN'T refute his posit, which was true, the Founders were concerned with standing armies, liar! At the time, the 'regular army' as nonexistent!


Armies in that context WAS militia. Who do you think Washington used to defeat the conservative up-risers in Shay's rebellion?

there is no standing army clause? really? what the **** do you think raise and army means? and for two years...that is a standing army. good lord, no wonder RW is running from these posts.

The Constitution has a mandate to "provide and maintain a Navy" Not Army and Navy...just Navy
Armies were a luxury we could not afford. The intent was to "raise an Army" bring in troops when they are needed

 

[Dad2three]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

LOL...RW is now backtracking claiming there merely was no requirement to raise armies

LOOOL

no wonder he is ignoring all the truths against his bullshit

Alright, you have NOTHING but bullshit like most other right wingers. Zero honesty or critical thinking

NEXT

 

[rightwinger]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

LOL...RW is now backtracking claiming there merely was no requirement to raise armies

LOOOL

no wonder he is ignoring all the truths against his bullshit

Read my posts...I said no requirement for a "standing Army" do you know what that means?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Under WHOSE direction? Oops

In times of war, the unorganized militia can be called by state governors. At other times, they are self-regulating. That's not my opinion, that is the law - which I cited.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution has a mandate to "provide and maintain a Navy" Not Army and Navy...just Navy
Armies were a luxury we could not afford. The intent was to "raise an Army" bring in troops when they are needed

Oh the shit you fling, little feral baboon.

{Armies were a luxury we could not afford}

Well, not exactly..

{
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363}

Jefferson on Politics Government The Military

Have a banana.

 

[Yurt]

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

see...i told you RW is ignorant of the constitution:

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....

good lord you are stupid person RW

lol, DOESN'T refute his posit, which was true, the Founders were concerned with standing armies, liar! At the time, the 'regular army' as nonexistent!


Armies in that context WAS militia. Who do you think Washington used to defeat the conservative up-risers in Shay's rebellion?

there is no standing army clause? really? what the **** do you think raise and army means? and for two years...that is a standing army. good lord, no wonder RW is running from these posts.

Got it, you don't understand what a standing Army was or is. Thanks anyways Bubba

it is about appropriations you simpleton...

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution has a mandate to "provide and maintain a Navy" Not Army and Navy...just Navy
Armies were a luxury we could not afford. The intent was to "raise an Army" bring in troops when they are needed

Oh the shit you fling, little feral baboon.

{Armies were a luxury we could not afford}

Well, not exactly..

{
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363}

Jefferson on Politics Government The Military

Have a banana.

Do you actually read what you post or just Google and spit out whatever comes up?

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90
"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

ALL support what I said about the founders not requiring a standing Army.......are you really that much of an idiot or do you play one on the internet?

 

[turtledude]

most members of the far right (whatever that means in the mind of a leftwing Obama slurper such as you) are much smarter than Obama fluffers who depend on government to feed and clothe them

Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.


Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

that proves nothing but what does matter is the ethnic group with the lowest average IQ and lowest rate of educational achievement voted for Obola Nairobi at rates of 96%

Got it, just another proud KKKGOP voter you are

when suckers of the public tit get their ass handed to them by those of us who are actually NET tax payers, the first thing such suckers do is call us racist


Guess what whiner Its not my duty to pay for your cretinous spawn.

We have a political party and *news* channel that caters to people who live in Black-n-White World. Even though nearly all societies have some socialist aspects to them, Faux News and Republicans like to spotlight individual things and label them and anyone who supports them as "socialist."

Most of Faux News viewers are non-1%er retirees, which means they are lapping up most of the socialism the US offers its citizens: social security and Medicare.

What do you expect from people who lie, distort, and misrepresent everything they say because they have to, otherwise their bullsh-t would be obvious even to the stupid people that agree with them because they do not have a clue...

sadly for you I am much smarter than you are

much better Educated (three Ivy degrees)

Much wealthier

and much more knowledgeable

so you can pretend that you- a parasite-are much smarter then we who don't need government help. But you are a tit sucker pure and simple

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Got it, you are to ignorant (willful?) to follow it to the ANTI Tax Foundations numbers, lol

Here let me help you

Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State 1981-2005 Tax Foundation

Cali, the largest state economy in the US by 50%, got more stimulus? AND?

Dumbass

Federal spending on WHAT, Comrade?

Fort Hood? Yellowstone?

See, you're a hack and the hate sites that do your thinking for you have no integrity, ergo the shit you post has no meaning.

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/u...d=1&adxnnlx=1413558267-i80xtNuk/LZ1B16BU3EaTw


GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government
GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In
Even as Republicans gripe about deficit spending, their states get 30 cents more federal spending per tax dollar than their Democratic neighbors.


Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In Mother Jones

The Obama economy has thrown a huge segment of the middle class onto food stamps. The war that the left wages on the middle class rages on, leaving many with no choice at all.

Don't argue with them over what is better.

Ask them the direct question. They set up the premise.

They are talking about compromise.

WHAT ARE THEY WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON?

You know damn well, they aren't willing to compromise on abortion, gay marriage, the iraq war, the economy, on and on and on.

No, on all those things, it must be their way or the highway.

It's ONLY WE that are supposed to compromise while they get their total baby way.

Don't argue with the premise, take them to task for the premise.

Doing anything else is just playing into their tactic.

Rightwinger already admitted that democrats have no intention of compromising on anything, that they expect the Republicans do all the compromising.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution and act like they are the only ones concerned with the founders principles in crafting this great document

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise. Congressmen and Senators must compromise with each other to craft a bill and get it passed....

I will give you this if you will give me that

That is how our government has functioned for hundreds of years. Instead, Conservatives have instituted a policy of....If I don't get my way, nothing will get done

That attitude is an insult to our founders who formed our very government out of compromise

where does it say compromise in the constitution?

perhaps we should just compromise every year and change the entire constitution....

while compromise often makes good government, it is not always in the best interest of the country and certainly NOT a constitutional mandate. your thread is full of fail.

WAS the Constitution formed (like our nation) with compromise?

Because something ISN'T in the US Constitution, should that mean we needn't be for it, like capitalism?

Capitalism isn't in the Constitution?

Dude, we have property rights. THAT's capitalism.

It's socialism that isn't in the Constitution.

Take your marxist fantasies to Democratic Underground. They wouldn't probably take them seriously.

PLEASE point to capitalism in the Constitution?


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oh goody.

Some liberal pointy heads tell you what you want to hear.

If that's true, then how come capitalism is the way of life here in the US instead of your vaunted socialism?

Sure, the US doesn't have socialist roads, schools, bridges, SS, Medicare, etc

lol

 

[Dad2three]

'Liberty'? lol

I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

You and your filthy party wage war on civil rights. Obama has attacked the 1st amendment openly for the last 4 years. Here we see you ignorantly attacking the 2nd. You desire an authoritarian dictatorship, but you lack the means to accomplish it.

Is America going to let you regulate speech? No.

Will we let you regulate the right to self-defense? No.

So you may as well pack up and move to North Korea - realize your dream now - everything you propose awaits you.

False premises, distortions and LIES, the ONLY tools in the right wings tool box. Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

Know who's famous for being unwilling to compromise politically? Ayn Rand.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on ANY policy in the US?

War with Afganistan comes to mind.

WAR is a policy? SERIOUSLY? ,lol

But how'd Dubya do in his war? Oh right, Iraq diverted his attention AND troops against the 'good war' to the one which Dubya created on false premises!

You asked for a correct policy conservatives have been on. I answered. War with Afganistan was correct and proper. How it went down is another question.

War ISN'T a policy Bubba.

Policy is education. Tax policy. Foreign policy, civil rights, woman's rights, labor rights, SS, etc

AGAIN, ONE time conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of ANY policy?

 

[Dad2three]

Know who's famous for being unwilling to compromise politically? Ayn Rand.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on ANY policy in the US?

War with Afganistan comes to mind.

WAR is a policy? SERIOUSLY? ,lol

But how'd Dubya do in his war? Oh right, Iraq diverted his attention AND troops against the 'good war' to the one which Dubya created on false premises!

You asked for a correct policy conservatives have been on. I answered. War with Afganistan was correct and proper. How it went down is another question.

All you have to do is compared the Bush/Reagan years to the Obama years.

Unemployment alone proves how much better conservatives do the job than liberals.

So no, you CAN'T come up with a policy. Thanks

Both Dubya/Ronnie used tax cuts that starved the beast AS they blew up spending. The next guys had to fix it!

 

[turtledude]

'Liberty'? lol

I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

You and your filthy party wage war on civil rights. Obama has attacked the 1st amendment openly for the last 4 years. Here we see you ignorantly attacking the 2nd. You desire an authoritarian dictatorship, but you lack the means to accomplish it.

Is America going to let you regulate speech? No.

Will we let you regulate the right to self-defense? No.

So you may as well pack up and move to North Korea - realize your dream now - everything you propose awaits you.

False premises, distortions and LIES, the ONLY tools in the right wings tool box. Shocking

That's funny coming from the tit sucking side of the aisle

Nothing is a bigger lie than the Leftwing elites who pretend their goal is to help the poor and thus they pander to dependent little children such as you, when in reality, their goal is to become rich and powerful

sucker

 

[Dad2three]

Under WHOSE direction? Oops

In times of war, the unorganized militia can be called by state governors. At other times, they are self-regulating. That's not my opinion, that is the law - which I cited.

Self regulated? lol PLEASE show me where that is at?