Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2009-12-11 01:32:39
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6757

lowing wrote:

Doves? Not sure I agree with that, I consider myself a libertarian, however, I bow to the fact that that liberty needs protected by a strong military. Hardly like a dove.
Good luck with those unwinnable wars. Anyone with a strong army can militarily inflict massive damage on an enemy, but they will need to do so at their own heavy cost perpetually if they don't have a gameplan designed to wind things up. Keep the blinkers on, the labels attached and the head down and you'll be okay...

Your attitude towards the defence/military end of things is so at odds with libertarianism it's not funny. Not only that is that it is barely rational. Ultimately what you seek is for 1.3 billion people to be wiped from the face of the earth or brushed under some carpet somewhere. Never going to happen. Your 'might prevails' attitude fails, just as it did for Hitler, Hirohito, Napoleon,..... You cannot force people (ordinary civilians) of a different ethos to you to change by pointing a gun at them, you will only make them more resistant (unless of course you're France...). One must balance sometimes necessary military power with softer non-military actions to strive towards actually achievable goals. The binary world you're so proud of is incapable of understanding that it would seem. Balance and practicality do not seem to be words that are in your vocabulary.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-11 01:42:29)

2009-12-11 04:33:23
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't think politics going to extremes of right and left helps anyone really.
If the 8 years of Bush are what neoconservatism are about then good luck.
I think if you read what neoconservatism is supposed to be in the article, you'll see that's not what Bush et al were/are.

I would liken them more to highly informed/educated libertarians...to throw out a label (as much as I hate them).
Don't sully the reputation of libertarians. Neocons are hawks and believe in a strong central government. Libertarians are doves and believe in a weak central government. The only thing we agree on are economics. But even here, they believe in market intervention and the forcible opening of new markets with military force. Libertarians believe in a more organic opening up of markets like "See what we have? You can have it too if you're willing to trade".
Read the first sentence of what I wrote.

Based on what the article said, their description of what neocons were supposed to be when the movement was founded (vice what it became) is more akin to libertarianism than anything else. Back in the day neo (new) conservatism = back to the basics = libertarianism = Constitutionalism...in theory.

In practice, it became something else entirely. I think that's the point the article was trying to make...and the point I was trying to make. I was certainly not saying neocons (today) are libertarians. Far from it.

Hell, neocons have sullied the reputation of conservatives in general, even though most of their policies are far from conservative.

Edit: My second sentence of my original post was not referring to Bush et al, but rather to the original neoconservatives...based on the description in the article. I was attempting to relate it to current definitions of the political spectrum. Maybe that's where the confusion arose.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-12-11 04:35:25)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-12-11 06:57:05
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6308|eXtreme to the maX
Thats the problem, politicians tell you they're all apple pies and breakfasts in bed for everyone.
They get in and go back on everything they said, then loot all the cash they can before they get thrown out.

I still may run as Greed Party candidate.
Fuck Israel
2009-12-11 08:21:45
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Doves? Not sure I agree with that, I consider myself a libertarian, however, I bow to the fact that that liberty needs protected by a strong military. Hardly like a dove.
Good luck with those unwinnable wars. Anyone with a strong army can militarily inflict massive damage on an enemy, but they will need to do so at their own heavy cost perpetually if they don't have a gameplan designed to wind things up. Keep the blinkers on, the labels attached and the head down and you'll be okay...

Your attitude towards the defence/military end of things is so at odds with libertarianism it's not funny. Not only that is that it is barely rational. Ultimately what you seek is for 1.3 billion people to be wiped from the face of the earth or brushed under some carpet somewhere. Never going to happen. Your 'might prevails' attitude fails, just as it did for Hitler, Hirohito, Napoleon,..... You cannot force people (ordinary civilians) of a different ethos to you to change by pointing a gun at them, you will only make them more resistant (unless of course you're France...). One must balance sometimes necessary military power with softer non-military actions to strive towards actually achievable goals. The binary world you're so proud of is incapable of understanding that it would seem. Balance and practicality do not seem to be words that are in your vocabulary.
Ahhh Cam comes down from the mountain:

No, the balance comes in when you try diplomacy, and must resort to your strong military. For if not for a strong military, your diplomacy will mean shit. Unless of course you live in Fantasy-land with the rest of the liberal think tank, who believe you can be weak, and full of resources and nobody will take advantage of you, and everyone will listen to you.

A strong military is a necessity, or you will forced to rely on or bow to a nation with a strong military.

It is a necessity to ensuring your freedom as a nation.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-11 08:22:36)

2009-12-11 08:28:28
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Doves? Not sure I agree with that, I consider myself a libertarian, however, I bow to the fact that that liberty needs protected by a strong military. Hardly like a dove.
Good luck with those unwinnable wars. Anyone with a strong army can militarily inflict massive damage on an enemy, but they will need to do so at their own heavy cost perpetually if they don't have a gameplan designed to wind things up. Keep the blinkers on, the labels attached and the head down and you'll be okay...

Your attitude towards the defence/military end of things is so at odds with libertarianism it's not funny. Not only that is that it is barely rational. Ultimately what you seek is for 1.3 billion people to be wiped from the face of the earth or brushed under some carpet somewhere. Never going to happen. Your 'might prevails' attitude fails, just as it did for Hitler, Hirohito, Napoleon,..... You cannot force people (ordinary civilians) of a different ethos to you to change by pointing a gun at them, you will only make them more resistant (unless of course you're France...). One must balance sometimes necessary military power with softer non-military actions to strive towards actually achievable goals. The binary world you're so proud of is incapable of understanding that it would seem. Balance and practicality do not seem to be words that are in your vocabulary.
Ahhh Cam comes down from the mountain:

No, the balance comes in when you try diplomacy, and must resort to your strong military. For if not for a strong military, your diplomacy will mean shit. Unless of course you live in Fantasy-land with the rest of the liberal think tank, who believe you can be weak, and full of resources and nobody will take advantage of you, and everyone will listen to you.

A strong military is a necessity, or you will forced to rely on or bow to a nation with a strong military.

It is a necessity to ensuring your freedom as a nation.
Again... who do we have to fear invasion from...?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 08:37:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Good luck with those unwinnable wars. Anyone with a strong army can militarily inflict massive damage on an enemy, but they will need to do so at their own heavy cost perpetually if they don't have a gameplan designed to wind things up. Keep the blinkers on, the labels attached and the head down and you'll be okay...

Your attitude towards the defence/military end of things is so at odds with libertarianism it's not funny. Not only that is that it is barely rational. Ultimately what you seek is for 1.3 billion people to be wiped from the face of the earth or brushed under some carpet somewhere. Never going to happen. Your 'might prevails' attitude fails, just as it did for Hitler, Hirohito, Napoleon,..... You cannot force people (ordinary civilians) of a different ethos to you to change by pointing a gun at them, you will only make them more resistant (unless of course you're France...). One must balance sometimes necessary military power with softer non-military actions to strive towards actually achievable goals. The binary world you're so proud of is incapable of understanding that it would seem. Balance and practicality do not seem to be words that are in your vocabulary.
Ahhh Cam comes down from the mountain:

No, the balance comes in when you try diplomacy, and must resort to your strong military. For if not for a strong military, your diplomacy will mean shit. Unless of course you live in Fantasy-land with the rest of the liberal think tank, who believe you can be weak, and full of resources and nobody will take advantage of you, and everyone will listen to you.

A strong military is a necessity, or you will forced to rely on or bow to a nation with a strong military.

It is a necessity to ensuring your freedom as a nation.
Again... who do we have to fear invasion from...?
Dispose of your capable military and find out. Or maybe the native Americans from the tip of South America, to Alaska might have an opinion.

Or maybe Poland, along with France and the Philippines, etc. all might have an opinion.

The real question is, without a strong military, who WOULDN'T you have to worry about?

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-11 08:42:58)

2009-12-11 08:42:07
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Ahhh Cam comes down from the mountain:

No, the balance comes in when you try diplomacy, and must resort to your strong military. For if not for a strong military, your diplomacy will mean shit. Unless of course you live in Fantasy-land with the rest of the liberal think tank, who believe you can be weak, and full of resources and nobody will take advantage of you, and everyone will listen to you.

A strong military is a necessity, or you will forced to rely on or bow to a nation with a strong military.

It is a necessity to ensuring your freedom as a nation.
Again... who do we have to fear invasion from...?
Dispose of your capable military and find out. Or maybe the native Americans from the tip of South America, to Alaska might have an opinion.
I could've sworn we have enough nukes to wipe out the world many times over... Failing to understand why we need nukes if we must maintain such a ridiculously expensive conventional force. One or the other is redundant.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 08:44:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Again... who do we have to fear invasion from...?
Dispose of your capable military and find out. Or maybe the native Americans from the tip of South America, to Alaska might have an opinion.
I could've sworn we have enough nukes to wipe out the world many times over... Failing to understand why we need nukes if we must maintain such a ridiculously expensive conventional force. One or the other is redundant.
Regardless, having a strong military would include nuclear deterance. You just got done arguing a strong military is not needed, so which is it?

Your argument just went from not needing to project a strong miitary to HOW it is to be projected. A different argument all together.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-11 08:46:58)

2009-12-11 08:48:17
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Dispose of your capable military and find out. Or maybe the native Americans from the tip of South America, to Alaska might have an opinion.
I could've sworn we have enough nukes to wipe out the world many times over... Failing to understand why we need nukes if we must maintain such a ridiculously expensive conventional force. One or the other is redundant.
Regardless, having a strong military would include nuclear deterance. You just got done arguing a strong military is not needed, so which is it?
We have no real threats and our nuclear weapons are much cheaper than a conventional force is. You could feel nice and safe in your backyard bunker even if we eliminated our army, navy, marines and the part of the air force that isn't dedicated to our nukes. We don't need a million people on active duty. It's a complete waste of money.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 08:48:45
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6332|North Tonawanda, NY

JohnG@lt wrote:

I could've sworn we have enough nukes to wipe out the world many times over... Failing to understand why we need nukes if we must maintain such a ridiculously expensive conventional force. One or the other is redundant.
The nuclear stockpile is being reduced...so does that mean the large conventional force is justified?  Or is that line of reasoning flawed?

I would say it's flawed.  To say to the world "invade me and we all lose" is pretty damn childish...but then, so it how the world works.
2009-12-11 08:55:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


I could've sworn we have enough nukes to wipe out the world many times over... Failing to understand why we need nukes if we must maintain such a ridiculously expensive conventional force. One or the other is redundant.
Regardless, having a strong military would include nuclear deterance. You just got done arguing a strong military is not needed, so which is it?
We have no real threats and our nuclear weapons are much cheaper than a conventional force is. You could feel nice and safe in your backyard bunker even if we eliminated our army, navy, marines and the part of the air force that isn't dedicated to our nukes. We don't need a million people on active duty. It's a complete waste of money.
NOT the argument. A full array of nukes is still a strong military, a military you say we do not need. read up I edited.
2009-12-11 08:59:40
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I could've sworn we have enough nukes to wipe out the world many times over... Failing to understand why we need nukes if we must maintain such a ridiculously expensive conventional force. One or the other is redundant.
The nuclear stockpile is being reduced...so does that mean the large conventional force is justified?  Or is that line of reasoning flawed?

I would say it's flawed.  To say to the world "invade me and we all lose" is pretty damn childish...but then, so it how the world works.
Meh, in today's world it would be impossible to launch a surprise invasion, even from a nation as secretive and closed as China. No nation even possesses the required troop transports to move a large enough force to our shores to make a dent in our populace.

We happen to have the same advantage Russia does, our sheer size. The fact that our nation also has more guns than any other country in the world would lead to a pretty badass partisan effort. We just really have no need for a large standing army.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 09:01:48
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Regardless, having a strong military would include nuclear deterance. You just got done arguing a strong military is not needed, so which is it?
We have no real threats and our nuclear weapons are much cheaper than a conventional force is. You could feel nice and safe in your backyard bunker even if we eliminated our army, navy, marines and the part of the air force that isn't dedicated to our nukes. We don't need a million people on active duty. It's a complete waste of money.
NOT the argument. A full array of nukes is still a strong military, a military you say we do not need. read up I edited.
You've completely missed my point then. I'm arguing against the need to spend $600BN a year on a large standing army. There is no need for it. We could convert every last active duty unit to a reserve unit and still be just as safe from invasion and spend 1/10th the amount of money.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 09:11:21
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England
Last point and then I'm done arguing this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

being necessary to the security of a free State... The people that wrote this found the idea of a standing Army to be abhorrent. They felt it was anathema to freedom. The primary reason for our second amendment right to bear arms was so the population of the US would have the ability to fight off invasion (or to topple an autocratic government that came into power). To maintain a large standing army completely undercuts the need for an armed populace. Do you not understand this?

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-11 09:12:17)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 10:06:35
Morpheus
This shit still going?
+508|6201|The Mitten

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.
But... but that's not what we're told to think... it must be wrong!

Spoiler (highlight to read):
don't forget the [sarcasm] tags
EE (hats
2009-12-11 10:10:46
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6938|Salt Lake City

At this point the government claims to have 865 military bases around the world, not counting those we currently hold in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the number closer to 1K.  We need to close the majority of those and keep only a few strategic locations around the world.  Re-open some bases here in the US and let our own cities/towns benefit from the economics associated with those bases being right here.

I'm with John on this one.  Given the technologically advanced nature of our military and data collection capabilities, we don't need this large of a standing military, and we don't need them in hundreds of bases all over the world.
2009-12-11 11:04:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

Last point and then I'm done arguing this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

being necessary to the security of a free State... The people that wrote this found the idea of a standing Army to be abhorrent. They felt it was anathema to freedom. The primary reason for our second amendment right to bear arms was so the population of the US would have the ability to fight off invasion (or to topple an autocratic government that came into power). To maintain a large standing army completely undercuts the need for an armed populace. Do you not understand this?

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.
Because our military will protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic." It works for the people, made up by the people. It will not stand in front of a large govt. seeking to take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

There is no pradox. Military is not govt. in the US. It works for the people. Kinda why it does not change when th administration changes.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-11 11:06:38)

2009-12-11 11:16:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

At this point the government claims to have 865 military bases around the world, not counting those we currently hold in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the number closer to 1K.  We need to close the majority of those and keep only a few strategic locations around the world.  Re-open some bases here in the US and let our own cities/towns benefit from the economics associated with those bases being right here.

I'm with John on this one.  Given the technologically advanced nature of our military and data collection capabilities, we don't need this large of a standing military, and we don't need them in hundreds of bases all over the world.
Yes, this is the same John, that in a previous argument said airpower does not win wars, you need ground forces to hold the land, now says all ya need are nukes. Nothing like a reality check in need.

Kinda would like to win a war without radiating the entire planet.

Again, which is it? strong military or not? Air power or not?
2009-12-11 11:19:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Last point and then I'm done arguing this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

being necessary to the security of a free State... The people that wrote this found the idea of a standing Army to be abhorrent. They felt it was anathema to freedom. The primary reason for our second amendment right to bear arms was so the population of the US would have the ability to fight off invasion (or to topple an autocratic government that came into power). To maintain a large standing army completely undercuts the need for an armed populace. Do you not understand this?

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.
Because our military will protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic." It works for the people, made up by the people. It will not stand in front of a large govt. seeking to take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

There is no pradox. Military is not govt. in the US. It works for the people. Kinda why it does not change when th administration changes.
Military is not govt? Who is the Commander in Chief? Who controls the purse strings of the military? Who sets the budget for military research? Who makes purchases of new equipment? Who selects the JCOS? Who tells it where to go and what to do?

Lol at the military being outside of the government. They're as far outside of the government as the EPA, IRS and SEC.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 11:19:45
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

Morpheus wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.
But... but that's not what we're told to think... it must be wrong!

Spoiler (highlight to read):
don't forget the [sarcasm] tags
No, you are told to think that your responsibility is to your govt. and not your family and yourself.

You are told, you can not make it without govt. assistence.

You are told, govt. is the only solution to solving any problem.
2009-12-11 11:19:56
Morpheus
This shit still going?
+508|6201|The Mitten

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Last point and then I'm done arguing this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

being necessary to the security of a free State... The people that wrote this found the idea of a standing Army to be abhorrent. They felt it was anathema to freedom. The primary reason for our second amendment right to bear arms was so the population of the US would have the ability to fight off invasion (or to topple an autocratic government that came into power). To maintain a large standing army completely undercuts the need for an armed populace. Do you not understand this?

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.
Because our military will protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic." It works for the people, made up by the people. It will not stand in front of a large govt. seeking to take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

There is no pradox. Military is not govt. in the US. It works for the people. Kinda why it does not change when th administration changes.
Really? All the top generals retire when the administration changes? Why is the president (the symbol of administration) refered to as the Commander in Chief? Did the military go into iraqistan because the PEOPLE wanted to, or because the ADMINISTRATION wanted to?
EE (hats
2009-12-11 11:25:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Last point and then I'm done arguing this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

being necessary to the security of a free State... The people that wrote this found the idea of a standing Army to be abhorrent. They felt it was anathema to freedom. The primary reason for our second amendment right to bear arms was so the population of the US would have the ability to fight off invasion (or to topple an autocratic government that came into power). To maintain a large standing army completely undercuts the need for an armed populace. Do you not understand this?

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.
Because our military will protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic." It works for the people, made up by the people. It will not stand in front of a large govt. seeking to take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

There is no pradox. Military is not govt. in the US. It works for the people. Kinda why it does not change when th administration changes.
Military is not govt? Who is the Commander in Chief? Who controls the purse strings of the military? Who sets the budget for military research? Who makes purchases of new equipment? Who selects the JCOS? Who tells it where to go and what to do?

Lol at the military being outside of the government. They're as far outside of the government as the EPA, IRS and SEC.
It is financed by the people. It works for the people. As DID the congress and president. The military still does.


As you can tell per this.

It has started already http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
2009-12-11 11:28:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

Morpheus wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Last point and then I'm done arguing this.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

being necessary to the security of a free State... The people that wrote this found the idea of a standing Army to be abhorrent. They felt it was anathema to freedom. The primary reason for our second amendment right to bear arms was so the population of the US would have the ability to fight off invasion (or to topple an autocratic government that came into power). To maintain a large standing army completely undercuts the need for an armed populace. Do you not understand this?

I don't really understand the mental dexterity it takes to create the paradoxical viewpoint that our current large military hawks maintain. They want their guns, they want their freedoms, and they want a large military. The first two go hand in hand, the last cancels out the previous two.
Because our military will protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic." It works for the people, made up by the people. It will not stand in front of a large govt. seeking to take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

There is no pradox. Military is not govt. in the US. It works for the people. Kinda why it does not change when th administration changes.
Really? All the top generals retire when the administration changes? Why is the president (the symbol of administration) refered to as the Commander in Chief? Did the military go into iraqistan because the PEOPLE wanted to, or because the ADMINISTRATION wanted to?
HE is the C in C yet has never held a real job, for any lengh of real time. He is a symbol of the people, how appropriate he is liberal.
2009-12-11 11:30:31
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Because our military will protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic." It works for the people, made up by the people. It will not stand in front of a large govt. seeking to take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

There is no pradox. Military is not govt. in the US. It works for the people. Kinda why it does not change when th administration changes.
Military is not govt? Who is the Commander in Chief? Who controls the purse strings of the military? Who sets the budget for military research? Who makes purchases of new equipment? Who selects the JCOS? Who tells it where to go and what to do?

Lol at the military being outside of the government. They're as far outside of the government as the EPA, IRS and SEC.
It is financed by the people. It works for the people. As DID the congress and president. The military still does.


As you can tell per this.

It has started already http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
I'm well aware of the oathkeepers. I'm also well aware that they are a part of a fraction of the military that actually thinks. The rest? Thinking about anything other than getting laid or shooting people is hard. If the President declared martial law and told the military to become the new police force maybe 10% would have the balls to defy the order.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-11 11:32:51
Morpheus
This shit still going?
+508|6201|The Mitten

lowing wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

lowing wrote:


Because our military will protect us from enemies "foreign and domestic." It works for the people, made up by the people. It will not stand in front of a large govt. seeking to take away the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

There is no pradox. Military is not govt. in the US. It works for the people. Kinda why it does not change when th administration changes.
Really? All the top generals retire when the administration changes? Why is the president (the symbol of administration) refered to as the Commander in Chief? Did the military go into iraqistan because the PEOPLE wanted to, or because the ADMINISTRATION wanted to?
HE is the C in C yet has never held a real job, for any lengh of real time. He is a symbol of the people, how appropriate he is liberal.
...OK, but can you answer my question?
EE (hats

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard