Forget left and right , repub and dem for just one minute

[donttread]

Just for one minute look at the actions of government over the past 16 years and their effect on our nation as a whole vs. two haves.
Now judge them COLLECTIVELY on what you percieve to be their success and failures over that time. Can you put the divide aside long enough to do that? If so ask yourself this:
Do you want 4 , 8 or 16 more years of the same? Do you believe we can survive 4, 8 or 16 more years of the same?
Another way to look at it is imagine that there are two competing factions at your job. Nothing ever gets accomplished and each faction simply blames the other. Now imagine you are the CEO. What would you do? Keep them and go bankrupt? Fire them but re-hire from the same two employment agenicies that caused the divide in the first place?
Or fire them all and hire a new head hunter?

[donttread]

Just for one minute look at the actions of government over the past 16 years &nbsp;and their effect on our nation as a whole vs. two haves. Now judge them COLLECTIVELY on what you percieve to be their success and failures over that time. Can you put the divide aside long enough to do that? If so ask yourself this:Do you want 4 , 8 or &nbsp;16 more years of the same? Do you believe we can survive 4, 8 or 16 more years of the same?&nbsp;<br>Another way to look at it is imagine that there &nbsp;are two competing factions at your job. Nothing ever gets accomplished and each faction simply blames the other. Now imagine you are the CEO. What would you do? Keep them and go bankrupt? Fire them but re-hire from the same two employment agenicies that caused the divide in the first place? Or fire them all and hire a new head hunter?

[Peter1469]

Left v right is old news. In 5 years historians are going to say I have been saying for a year.

The new divide is nationalism v. the march towards globalism.

[Peter1469]

Notice: Duplicate threads merged

[Mac-7]

Just for one minute look at the actions of government over the past 16 years and their effect on our nation as a whole vs. two haves.
Now judge them COLLECTIVELY on what you percieve to be their success and failures over that time. Can you put the divide aside long enough to do that? If so ask yourself this:
Do you want 4 , 8 or 16 more years of the same? Do you believe we can survive 4, 8 or 16 more years of the same?
Another way to look at it is imagine that there are two competing factions at your job. Nothing ever gets accomplished and each faction simply blames the other. Now imagine you are the CEO. What would you do? Keep them and go bankrupt? Fire them but re-hire from the same two employment agenicies that caused the divide in the first place?

Or fire them all and hire a new head hunter?

Trump is that new head hunter

but you are too closeminded to see it

[Mac-7]

Left v right is old news. In 5 years historians are going to say I have been saying for a year.

The new divide is nationalism v. the march towards globalism.

I have been saying it for 15 years

[Peter1469]

I have been saying it for 15 years

First I heard it.

[Mac-7]

First I heard it.

It wasnt called "globalism" back then

thats a relatively new term

but the debate over NAFTA and GATT was really a clash between the globalists and the nationalists

[Mac-7]

And I was on the wrong side

because I was still filled with all the free trade nonsense being dished out at the time mostly by the right.

[Peter1469]

And I was on the wrong side

because I was still filled with all the free trade nonsense being dished out at the time mostly by the right.

Free trade is fine, but it is fair trade.

[Peter1469]

So far as globalism goes I am less worried about economic globalism than I am about cultural globalism.

[Chris]

Trade has always been global.

What globalism represents is governments trying to manage it with NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA (we get the shaft). The Constitution gave the US government three main powers: to raise a standing army, to tax the people, and to control trade in the US. NAFTA and other trade agreements represent an effort to globalize that control, moving it from within to between global governments.

[Bethere]

The Constitution gave the US government three main powers: to raise a standing army, to tax the people, and to control trade in the US.

False:

"... shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."--Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution

And of course there is no mention, nor is there any provision, in the constitution for a standing army.

[Chris]

false:

"... Shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."--article i, sec.8, clause 1, u.s. Constitution

and of course there is no mention, nor is there any provision, in the constitution for a standing army.

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;

[Peter1469]

False:

"... shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."--Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution

And of course there is no mention, nor is there any provision, in the constitution for a standing army.

Cut and paste the entirety of Art 1, sec, 8, US Const.

[Chris]

Cut and paste the entirety of Art 1, sec, 8, US Const.

I think we're going to get a Domer76 argument but the word standing doesn't appear there!

[Bethere]

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;

There's absolutely no mention of a standing army.

[Chris]

I think we're going to get a Domer76 argument but the word standing doesn't appear there!


There's absolutely no mention of a standing army.

Predicted.

OK, so let's start here: We have a standing army. Is it unconstitutional?

[Bethere]

Predicted.

OK, so let's start here: We have a standing army. Is it unconstitutional?

No, but that's a different argument.

You lost this one.

[Chris]

No, but that's a different argument.

You lost this one.


As participant in an argument you don't get to umpire who wins or loses without stepping out of bounds and forfeiting.


So you think a standing army is constitutional. Interesting. How is a standing army constitutional if the Constitution doesn't grant the government the power to create a standing army?

[Bethere]

As participant in an argument you don't get to umpire who wins or loses without stepping out of bounds and forfeiting.


So you think a standing army is constitutional. Interesting. How is a standing army constitutional if the Constitution doesn't grant the government the power to create a standing army?

Don't move the goalposts. I said the constitution doesn't mention a standing army, and it doesn't.

As for the rest of your post?

Earn my respect and I'd participate willingly.

Until then? Stick it in your ear.

[Chris]

...I said the constitution doesn't mention a standing army, and it doesn't. ....


Actually this is what you said: "And of course there is no mention, nor is there any provision, in the constitution for a standing army."

But if as you argue it is constitutional then the Constitution must mention it and provide for it.

And it does so in those parts cited above.

Your turn....

[Don]

Trade has always been global.

What globalism represents is governments trying to manage it with NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA (we get the shaft). The Constitution gave the US government three main powers: to raise a standing army, to tax the people, and to control trade in the US. NAFTA and other trade agreements represent an effort to globalize that control, moving it from within to between global governments.

I think the trade agreements were really just a way to water down individual nations sovereignty a little bit at a time. Keep adding other nations or groups of nations and eventually you end up with a world order. Remember, EU started out as nothing more than a simple trade agreement. People back then who dared to say the ultimate goal was a European nation with one currency and states made up of former countries were called conspiracy nuts. Now some of those people originally involved in the scheme admit that was their goal all along and stated that they had to lie or it wouldn't have gone anywhere. Once you have these different groups of nations with their entangling treaty and trade agreements its easier to combine those blocs into one governing superstate or world government.

[MisterVeritis]

There's absolutely no mention of a standing army.
Imagine that. In this instance you are right. The Constitution was designed to prevent a standing army. The King's Army was seen as dangerous to liberty. A standing Navy raised no similar concerns.

[MisterVeritis]

Predicted.

OK, so let's start here: We have a standing army. Is it unconstitutional?
Explain.

[MisterVeritis]

As participant in an argument you don't get to umpire who wins or loses without stepping out of bounds and forfeiting.


So you think a standing army is constitutional. Interesting. How is a standing army constitutional if the Constitution doesn't grant the government the power to create a standing army?
I am unwilling to spend the time today to make the point. Maybe you can tell us what you believe a standing army is.

[Chris]

I am unwilling to spend the time today to make the point. Maybe you can tell us what you believe a standing army is.

A permanent military. The only thing impermanent about "To raise and support Armies" is the following clause, "but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

[donttread]

Just for one minute look at the actions of government over the past 16 years and their effect on our nation as a whole vs. two haves.
Now judge them COLLECTIVELY on what you percieve to be their success and failures over that time. Can you put the divide aside long enough to do that? If so ask yourself this:
Do you want 4 , 8 or 16 more years of the same? Do you believe we can survive 4, 8 or 16 more years of the same?
Another way to look at it is imagine that there are two competing factions at your job. Nothing ever gets accomplished and each faction simply blames the other. Now imagine you are the CEO. What would you do? Keep them and go bankrupt? Fire them but re-hire from the same two employment agenicies that caused the divide in the first place?
Or fire them all and hire a new head hunter?

How about some opinions on the original post? I got just as distracted by the globalist conversation as everyone else. But right here and right now ask yourself to judge the government's collective actions over the past 16 years and whether or not you approve?

[Truth Detector]

Just for one minute look at the actions of government over the past 16 years and their effect on our nation as a whole vs. two haves.
Now judge them COLLECTIVELY on what you percieve to be their success and failures over that time. Can you put the divide aside long enough to do that? If so ask yourself this:
Do you want 4 , 8 or 16 more years of the same? Do you believe we can survive 4, 8 or 16 more years of the same?
Another way to look at it is imagine that there are two competing factions at your job. Nothing ever gets accomplished and each faction simply blames the other. Now imagine you are the CEO. What would you do? Keep them and go bankrupt? Fire them but re-hire from the same two employment agenicies that caused the divide in the first place?
Or fire them all and hire a new head hunter?

Nothing can be more asinine than the argument that there is no difference between the two major parties or that some obscure whacked out third party candidate is the answer.

Equating Government with what happens in private enterprise is probably the dumbest analogy one can find. There are ZERO similarities; the only thing one can hope is that the American sheeple stop swallowing the disinformation being fed to them by a media who no longer pretends to be objective or unbiased and promotes false narratives to prop up a woefully failed ideology.

You will NEVER loosen the grip of political parties or change the way Government operates thinking that some charismatic personality will bring about change. It will only happen when the sheeple demand term limits on Congress, abandoning the current abomination called the tax code supplanting it with the Fair Tax and demand that all subsidies be forever banned by Congress. Getting rid of about five or six departments will also end the corruption and stupidity we see in Government.

Anything less is mere window dressing and a waste of bandwidth.

[Truth Detector]

False:

"... shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."--Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution

And of course there is no mention, nor is there any provision, in the constitution for a standing army.

What do you believe is meant by "general welfare" within the US Constitution?

[MisterVeritis]

A permanent military. The only thing impermanent about "To raise and support Armies" is the following clause, "but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
There can be no permanent army as long as the money must be budgeted by the legislature annually. I know it is counterintuitive. We have no standing army.

[Peter1469]

What do you believe is meant by "general welfare" within the US Constitution?


The enumerated powers are immediately below the cut and paste.

That hard left wants to forget about those.

[donttread]

Nothing can be more asinine than the argument that there is no difference between the two major parties or that some obscure whacked out third party candidate is the answer.

Equating Government with what happens in private enterprise is probably the dumbest analogy one can find. There are ZERO similarities; the only thing one can hope is that the American sheeple stop swallowing the disinformation being fed to them by a media who no longer pretends to be objective or unbiased and promotes false narratives to prop up a woefully failed ideology.

You will NEVER loosen the grip of political parties or change the way Government operates thinking that some charismatic personality will bring about change. It will only happen when the sheeple demand term limits on Congress, abandoning the current abomination called the tax code supplanting it with the Fair Tax and demand that all subsidies be forever banned by Congress. Getting rid of about five or six departments will also end the corruption and stupidity we see in Government.

Anything less is mere window dressing and a waste of bandwidth.

Facts ( I know that you hate to be confronted with these ) But:
1)The fact is that both Bush and Obama both set spending and debt records.
2) The fact is that they combined to bail out megacorps with what has to be record corporate welfare.
3) The fact is that the two of them combined for 13 straight years of war, often on multiple fronts.
4) The fact is both eroded individual rights like due process and privacy .
5) The fact is Both pretty much ignored State's Rights and furthered the federal intrusion into state affairs Bush (Education) Obama ( Healthcare)
6) The fact is neither came close to fixing illegal immigration
( Several glaring similarities)
7) The fact is that The LP represents the Constitution , in fact their platform is based upon it .By calling that "whacked out" you ar.e coming out against the Constsitution.
8) The fact is that in stating that "Equating government with what happens in private enterprise is probably the dumbest analogy one can find . There are zero similarities." Shows your complete lack of understanding that there even IS a fiscal side to government, let alone your complete lack of any ability to evaluate governmental fiscal actions.
9) The fact continues to be that you lack the adult skill of being able to discuss issues with those you disagree without using words like "dumb " or "stupid." Although I do think you are using such words less, which is not only progress but proof that you are teachable.
10) I agree about term limits and throwing out the "control code" along with the people needing to get more involvement. We disagree about how that can happen. You believe the donkephant must be forced to do so against their will by the people. While I believe the people need only support a party that already wants to reign in government.

[donttread]

What do you believe is meant by "general welfare" within the US Constitution?

Anyone who believes that the General welfare clause or the Commerse Clause over rides the Enumerated Powers would have to believe that the Founders went through the trouble of haggling over and then writing Enumerated Powers only to negate them? Oh, that and that they were also willing to over ride everything they stood for. You see to the founders the federal government was a necessary evil required to deal with other countries and occassionally settle a dispute between otherwise independent states. The main opposition did not come from those who wished to grant the federal government more power but rather from those thought we needed even STRONGER restrictions on federal power. In retro-spect those folks were right.

[Mac-7]

What do you believe is meant by "general welfare" within the US Constitution?

I building a bridge or an aircraft carrier qualifies as the general welfare

But handing out food stamps or section 8 housing does not

[MisterVeritis]

I building a bridge or an aircraft carrier qualifies as the general welfare

But handing out food stamps or section 8 housing does not
I see it a little differently. Defense and general welfare are two distinct areas. Providing for defense involves fulfilling the defense-related statements in Article 1 section 8. Providing for the general welfare is met by fulfilling the remaining non-defense statements of the same article and section.

Nearly everything the Federal government does it does outside of its constitutional limits. We live in a tyranny.

[Peter1469]

The statists disregard the enumerated powers because otherwise they couldn't meddle in all aspect of citizens' lives.