It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by xavi1000
Originally posted by whaaa
Oh yeah Whatukno....it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that are tearing this nation apart and trying to turn this great nation into another Russia just like Barry and his Obamanation plan.,
While Rush, Beck, Palin, Newt, Savage, Levin, Prager, Boortz, OReilly, Ingraham, Medved and Belling are trying to bring folks together so we can all live as one big happy family, it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that just won't listen and continue fan the flames of commie hatred to God loving, fearing lovers of peace and harmony.
I hope you're happy! And may God show you his mighty wrath because he will, you just wait and see!!!!!
Any thinking person can see your evil plan because you are SPAWN OF SATAN !!!! and we know how to deal with PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!
edit on 5-3-2011 by whaaa because: sarcasm you betcha!
Posts like this make me think that there is no hope for humanity
Originally posted by whaaa
Originally posted by xavi1000
Originally posted by whaaa
Oh yeah Whatukno....it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that are tearing this nation apart and trying to turn this great nation into another Russia just like Barry and his Obamanation plan.,
While Rush, Beck, Palin, Newt, Savage, Levin, Prager, Boortz, OReilly, Ingraham, Medved and Belling are trying to bring folks together so we can all live as one big happy family, it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that just won't listen and continue fan the flames of commie hatred to God loving, fearing lovers of peace and harmony.
I hope you're happy! And may God show you his mighty wrath because he will, you just wait and see!!!!!
Any thinking person can see your evil plan because you are SPAWN OF SATAN !!!! and we know how to deal with PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!
edit on 5-3-2011 by whaaa because: sarcasm you betcha!
Posts like this make me think that there is no hope for humanity
You could very well be right....but I was just sarcastically carrying on the "pokin of fun" at the conservative mind set. I thought I gave a clue in the green edit tag.
Originally posted by whatukno
This is the exact argument conservatives use to try and justify ridding social programs like Medicaid and Social Security.
Now do you see how ridiculous this argument is?
Originally posted by Cuervo
No offense to the enlisted kids out there; it's not your fault your bosses are evil but... this whole pot calling the kettle black needs to stop.
BTW, I like the donating to PMC suggestion. Good call.
Originally posted by whaaa
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by LoverBoy
Actually there isn't any real difference between the two arguments.
They are both completely ridiculous. Of course we need a military, and we do need some social spending as well. I just wanted to point out how incredibly ignorant the Conservative argument against "entitlements" is.
Oh yeah Whatukno....it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that are tearing this nation apart and trying to turn this great nation into another Russia just like Barry and his Obamanation plan.,
While Rush, Beck, Palin, Newt, Savage, Levin, Prager, Boortz, OReilly, Ingraham, Medved and Belling are trying to bring folks together so we can all live as one big happy family, it's PEOPLE LIKE YOU that just won't listen and continue fan the flames of commie hatred to God loving, fearing lovers of peace and harmony.
I hope you're happy! And may God show you his mighty wrath because he will, you just wait and see!!!!!
Any thinking person can see your evil plan because you are SPAWN OF SATAN !!!! and we know how to deal with PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!!!!!!
edit on 5-3-2011 by whaaa because: sarcasm you betcha!
You argument is specious at best. The Constitution actually requires the federal government to provide for the common defense. No where does it say we should pay for old people to stay home and play dominoes instead of working. No where in the Constitution does it say we should pay unwed mothers to have even more kids that they cannot afford. I could go on, but hopefully you see the difference. A military is specifically called for, your socialist redistribution programs are not.
Originally posted by whatukno
This is the exact argument conservatives use to try and justify ridding social programs like Medicaid and Social Security.
Now do you see how ridiculous this argument is?
Originally posted by whatukno
This is the exact argument conservatives use to try and justify ridding social programs like Medicaid and Social Security.
Now do you see how ridiculous this argument is?
Originally posted by whatukno
Why should my taxes go to pay for such SOCIALISM?
Paying to train a group of people to do a job? Why should MY taxes go to provide these people with meals, health care, vehicles, places to sleep, and the tools to do their jobs?
Why?
This is socialist and as we all know everything socialist is bad.
The group I am talking about is the military.
Why should I pay to train someone to kill? Why should my tax money go to bombs? Why should my tax money go to building a nuclear arsenal?
I never get to use it, so why should I have to pay for it?
And you know that military personnel are lazy too, they go off, get their legs blown off on purpose just so they can live on the dime of the citizens, getting free health care from the VA. Those Commies!
If people want a military they should donate to a PMC and not take MY tax money to pay for these people.
edit on 3/5/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)
much more at:
Why Provide for the Common Defense?
Published on January 19, 2011 by Mackenzie Eaglen
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that all people have inalienable rights—among them, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, the U.S. Constitution creates a government of the people to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Why did the Founding Fathers believe that the federal government must provide for the common defense?
The weakness of the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution, convinced the Founders that the nation needed a stronger government, including a stronger military. The Founders were careful to grant the federal government only the few, limited powers that were necessary for it to carry out its aims. Under the Constitution, most powers are reserved to the states, or to the people.
The federal government is concerned only with issues that affect the welfare of the entire nation. It has the exclusive power, for example, to create an army, to declare war, and to make treaties. Indeed, as James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, “the operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger.”[1] For the Founders, a primary and central job of the federal government was to “provide for the common defense.”
The Founders realized that only an organized and professional military could respond to both domestic and foreign threats. That is why they authorized the building of forts, the creation of the U.S. Navy, and the founding of West Point. In times of peace, the United States has often been tempted to believe that it could safely disarm. The experience of the Founders convinced them that no peace was so secure that it could be relied upon with assurance, and no nation was so safe that it did not need to maintain sound and reliable defenses. America has regularly had to relearn this wisdom, often at great cost in money and men.
But the Founders were also suspicious of standing armies. They knew that, in Europe, standing armies had been used by monarchies to oppress the people. In order to avoid this danger, while providing for the nation’s security, the Founders made the common defense a shared responsibility of Congress and the President, the elected (and separate) branches of government. This ensured the American military would serve the nation, not subvert the rule of the people.
Thus, Congress declares war and funds the armed forces: the Constitution gives Congress power to “raise and support armies” and to “provide and maintain a navy.” The President commands the armed forces and controls their operations: as Commander in Chief, he is obliged to defend and protect the nation. In his role as the country’s chief diplomat, he also seeks to keep the peace.
"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?" – James Madison
January 19, 1788
The American Founders held out the possibility of more peaceful relations among nations. But they nevertheless understood that “the surest means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it in peace.”[2] As Thomas Paine warned, it would not be enough to “expect to reap the blessings of freedom.” Americans would have to “undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”[3] Supporting freedom and defending the nation would require public spending on the nation’s defense forces in peacetime. As President George Washington asserted in his First Annual Message, delivered in 1790, the “most effectual means of preserving peace” is “to be prepared for war.”[4]
During his presidency, Washington warned against leaving the nation’s security “to the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger.”[5] By then, it would be too late. In his Farewell Address, Washington urged Americans to remember “that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it.”[6]
Washington believed defense spending was necessary because he, like all the Founders, knew the history of wars in Europe and had experience with North African pirate attacks against American shipping. Washington’s generation knew the world was a dangerous place. As John Jay put it, “nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.” Furthermore, dictators or “absolute monarchs” would often make war even “when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects merely personal.”[7]
Most if not all of the Founding Fathers agreed that when America was threatened, the nation had to respond clearly and forcefully. After the United States obtained its independence in 1787, it lost the protection of the French Navy. Soon, the U.S. had to defend its sailors and commerce against North African pirates enabled by the Barbary States of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers. At first, Congress followed the tradition of the European countries and appropriated what would today be millions of dollars as tribute to the pirates. These ransom payments merely encouraged more pirate attacks and more demands for money.
Urged on by the public, Thomas Jefferson, elected in 1801, refused to accede to Tripoli’s demand for an immediate payment of $225,000 and annual payments of $25,000. Instead, Jefferson deployed frigates to defend America’s interests in the Mediterranean. Tunis and Algiers responded to America’s show of force by breaking their alliance with Tripoli. Hostilities with Tripoli only ended after American land forces took the fight to Tripoli, threatening to capture the city and depose its leader.
This episode taught America that bribery and appeasement encourage aggressors. Only an American Navy able to patrol the world’s oceans would bring peace on the high seas. As American interests have expanded and technology has evolved, America has built a modern military. But the essence of American policy has not changed: strength is the best and safest path to peace and security.
America’s Founders believed that peace through strength is preferable—militarily, financially, and morally—to allowing war to come through weakness. That is why, over two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson advised George Washington that “the power of making war often prevents it.”[8] In providing for the common defense, the goal of the Founders was to build a military sufficiently powerful and capable that America’s enemies preferred not to challenge it. In his Farewell Address, Washington hoped the day would soon come when “belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”