Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
The government has been expanded many times.
Starting with the creation of a full time army. Then when Jefferson decided to spend tax money on warships.
And it hasn't stopped in the slightest.
When you fundamentally change the course of this country from its foundational view of the "role" of government, yes that's pretty radical.
The constitution specifically allows for the funding of the military.
Congress therefor provides funding, for every aspect of military existence from operations to equipment. The specific responsibility , " raise and support Armies," and , "provide and maintain a Navy, " are specifically out lines in Section 8. Additionally appropriating funding for this provision is stated as not to exceed a period of, "two years, " without review by the Congress for the appropriation of funding.
The actual use of the military Constitutionally is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and specifically The President of The United States as Commander in Chief. Article II, Section 2 specifically states that , "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."As Commander in Chief, the President is the appointed governmental head of the military and as stated in the Constitution he, " he may require the Opinion, " of Department Heads in his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but he alone is the sole Constitutionally appointed officer of the government for the military and responsible for the military, "when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Government however, has not been granted the position to force it's citizens to purchase anything, nowhere can anything close to that be found in our Framer's intention for government nor for this nation.
He thinks "Radical" means it's never been done before!
I've opened up a thread to discuss how and why some presidents are radical..and some aren't and used examples.
That's the framework of the discussion. Not who's posting.
We, as citizens, purchase military hardware from privately owned corporations all the time.President Obama has expanded government though instituting an individual mandate, stating every citizen within the confines of the United States MUST purchase and carry health care. A government stance never before heard of (much less a path even CONSIDERED for government to be taking) since the foundation of this country. I'd say that makes Obama even more radical.
Again.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
The government has been expanded many times.
Starting with the creation of a full time army. Then when Jefferson decided to spend tax money on warships.
And it hasn't stopped in the slightest.
When you fundamentally change the course of this country from its foundational view of the "role" of government, yes that's pretty radical.
The constitution specifically allows for the funding of the military.
Congress therefor provides funding, for every aspect of military existence from operations to equipment. The specific responsibility , " raise and support Armies," and , "provide and maintain a Navy, " are specifically out lines in Section 8. Additionally appropriating funding for this provision is stated as not to exceed a period of, "two years, " without review by the Congress for the appropriation of funding.
The actual use of the military Constitutionally is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and specifically The President of The United States as Commander in Chief. Article II, Section 2 specifically states that , "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."As Commander in Chief, the President is the appointed governmental head of the military and as stated in the Constitution he, " he may require the Opinion, " of Department Heads in his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but he alone is the sole Constitutionally appointed officer of the government for the military and responsible for the military, "when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Government however, has not been granted the position to force it's citizens to purchase anything, nowhere can anything close to that be found in our Framer's intention for government nor for this nation.
We, as citizens, purchase military hardware from privately owned corporations all the time.Again.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
The government has been expanded many times.
Starting with the creation of a full time army. Then when Jefferson decided to spend tax money on warships.
And it hasn't stopped in the slightest.
When you fundamentally change the course of this country from its foundational view of the "role" of government, yes that's pretty radical.
The constitution specifically allows for the funding of the military.
Congress therefor provides funding, for every aspect of military existence from operations to equipment. The specific responsibility , " raise and support Armies," and , "provide and maintain a Navy, " are specifically out lines in Section 8. Additionally appropriating funding for this provision is stated as not to exceed a period of, "two years, " without review by the Congress for the appropriation of funding.
The actual use of the military Constitutionally is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and specifically The President of The United States as Commander in Chief. Article II, Section 2 specifically states that , "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."As Commander in Chief, the President is the appointed governmental head of the military and as stated in the Constitution he, " he may require the Opinion, " of Department Heads in his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but he alone is the sole Constitutionally appointed officer of the government for the military and responsible for the military, "when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Government however, has not been granted the position to force it's citizens to purchase anything, nowhere can anything close to that be found in our Framer's intention for government nor for this nation.
That's not in the Constitution.
Which is WHY there was a great deal of resistance when Jefferson started the practice.
And the type of army that the Constitution advocates for is a part time militia, not a full time federal controlled military made up of professionals. Which is why the Continental army was disbanded and the 2nd Amendment was added.
And these moves DID change the direction of the Country. Which were why they were radical. They led to expansionism and involvement in foreign wars.
I've opened up a thread to discuss how and why some presidents are radical..and some aren't and used examples.
That's the framework of the discussion. Not who's posting.
its a waste since you don't know what the word "radical" means. Maybe you need to read Alinsky's book.
We, as citizens, purchase military hardware from privately owned corporations all the time.When you fundamentally change the course of this country from its foundational view of the "role" of government, yes that's pretty radical.
The constitution specifically allows for the funding of the military.
Government however, has not been granted the position to force it's citizens to purchase anything, nowhere can anything close to that be found in our Framer's intention for government nor for this nation.
That's not in the Constitution.
Which is WHY there was a great deal of resistance when Jefferson started the practice.
And the type of army that the Constitution advocates for is a part time militia, not a full time federal controlled military made up of professionals. Which is why the Continental army was disbanded and the 2nd Amendment was added.
And these moves DID change the direction of the Country. Which were why they were radical. They led to expansionism and involvement in foreign wars.
what the hell does that have to do with obama ramming obamacare up our asses, spying on americans, and blowing up US citizens with drones?
We, as citizens, purchase military hardware from privately owned corporations all the time.
That's not in the Constitution.
Which is WHY there was a great deal of resistance when Jefferson started the practice.
And the type of army that the Constitution advocates for is a part time militia, not a full time federal controlled military made up of professionals. Which is why the Continental army was disbanded and the 2nd Amendment was added.
And these moves DID change the direction of the Country. Which were why they were radical. They led to expansionism and involvement in foreign wars.
what the hell does that have to do with obama ramming obamacare up our asses, spying on americans, and blowing up US citizens with drones?
You forget the Patriot Act and the Authorization to Use Military force?
I don't think you folks understand the terms "radical" and "unprecedented".
Mainly?
It means "never been done before"..
Your proposition is completely subjective.
I'll see your Reagan rant and raise you an Obama one.
Obama is arming and funding known terrorists. Aiding and providing comfort. Treason.
.
Seriously?
After what Reagan did with the Iranian terrorists? And arming the Muj?
President Obama has basically been painting in the lines with regards to both the constitution and remaining, when possible, consistent with the prior administration.
Neither Reagan nor Bush did that.
In fact, they were far more radical Presidents.
-Reagan made deals with terrorists in Iran, bargaining arms for hostages.
-Reagan violated the Boland amendment and funded the contras.
-Reagan promised to lower the debt and deficit yet went on a wild military spending spree and issued tax cuts to the wealthy.
-Bush immediately violated international agreements and began testing anti-ballistic missiles.
-Bush issued two major tax cuts despite not having support from the Democrats, one during the time of war.
-Bush started the "Bush Doctrine" which lowered the bar for US aggression and military action.
-Bush engaged in openly advocated for the torture of prisoners of war.
Those are just the short lists.
O'Bama is a moderate except in the eye's of the eXtremist rw'ers/t-partiers/water-carriers for big biz.
Your proposition is completely subjective.
I'll see your Reagan rant and raise you an Obama one.
Obama is arming and funding known terrorists. Aiding and providing comfort. Treason.
.
Seriously?
After what Reagan did with the Iranian terrorists? And arming the Muj?
Ollie North did the deal with the ragheads without Dutch's knowledge or approval. Why? Because the Rat Congress funded the Contras one year and then cut funding the next. You can't maintain a fighting force without money. So Ollie got the dough and the ragheads got a couple truckloads of DUD missles. Not a one of them was ever fired because they were inoperable.
As to funding the Muj.....read and remember, NOT A DIME WENT TO AN ARAB MUJ....NOT A DIME TO BIN-LADEN, NOT A DIME TO ANY FOREIGN FIGHTER IN THE STAN. Period.
I do find it interesting that the last few months idiot fucktards like Shallow have been bringing up Reagan more often than Bish. The MO of the log jammed blame game remains. That's intellectual bankruptcy for you.
Of course, when you start a thread that fails to navigate the context you thought you were introducing and then calling others out for it, you might be a fuckin moron. No, definitely a moron.
