Posted on 05/17/2004 7:20:20 AM PDT by Nexus
Oh wait a minute. The standard neocon answer is to accept those as 'necessary evils'. Some conservatism....
And the appeasocon answer is to ignore everything taht makes their position untenable or obviously wrong, but we won't go there.
Do you mean to say that the young United States in 1789 was wrong to have a standing Army AND Navy?
I have voted Republican since 1956...hardly a new conservative..
We're not armchair QBs. We're the owners.
Exactly.
I like how his statement second guesses the Foudners.
They had a standing Army and Navy in 1789, not much of one, granted, but it was there none the less.
And he states pretty much that it's not in the Constitution for such.
Actually I went back over my posts and at no time did I say that no standing army should exist. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though....
Nice try.
Here's teh statements for all to read.
And you're 'slick' attempts at implying such were noted.
Nice of you to try to backpedal with a finger on your mouth with eyes wide while saying, "I didn't say THAT."
To: billbears
We have had a standing army for decades.
640 posted on 05/19/2004 3:36:27 PM EDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Well bully for you. However voting Republican and being a conservative are not synonymous, no matter how much some try to scream it is.
Then we have been behaving un Constitutionally since the beginning.No more yearning for the good old days that never were.
Conservatives stand for strong defense.
You do not.
"Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though...."
No, that's your BANNED buddy JohnGalt yu're thinking about.
Your own words are enough, thank you very much.
Well...perhaps you are defining conservative your way..and perhaps what you wish for never was and never will be.
I think the Constitution is quite clear what should be allowed and not allowed. And yes, I was for the war in Afghanistan. I had reservations but overall I was for those attacks
I was responding to the statement from MEG33 that stated 'troops based in certain strategic countries for bases'
But do your best. Call names, paint me as unconservative, weak on defense, etc. I know my belief. And contrary to what you may say, whoever you may 'ping', you cannot point to one place on this thread that I said we shouldn't have a standing army of some level.
Let's review what you were responding to directly, shall we?
You have forgotten critical thinkng, and are out in left field.
WHo's calling names, by teh way?
JohnGalt isn't here.
So that won't work.
The quote was:
Meg33: We've had a standing army since the founding of this country.
You: "And that makes it right again how? Just because Presidents have chosen to ignore the Constitution for decades somehow confirms the opinion that it's right they ignore the Constitution?"
You're stating there that we should not have a standing army.
Yes, English really IS that simple.
Wrong. The President is the CNC whether we are at war or not, and he is the top wrung in the chain of command, whether we are at war or not. Congress is a completely seperate branch of government and has no authority over members of the Armed Forces. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
It's called the Constitution. Try reading it sometime. Article II, Section 2, states, "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 ..."
The founders feared a standing army. That's why Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gave Congress the sole power "to raise and support armies." However, the funding for those armies was not to exceed "a longer term than two years."
That's why they fund it every two years?
No, I'm stating that we follow the Constitution. What I said from the beginning. What does Article I, Section 8 state?
Let's take quotes out of context shall we? Look at the response in #638. Part of the argument she made was to require a 'standing army was only based in certain strategic coutries for bases'.
You've cherry picked one statement without taking the entire argument into context. Again, let me state clearly for you. I believe in the necessity for a limited size standing army. Just not one that's strewn over all creation
Can you not read what you just wrote? He is the CNC of the armed forces all of the time...but the militia only when called into actual service. Believe me....the President is CNC of the armed forces at all times.
The Constitution allows for a free standing army and navy.
Your statement implies that we should have neither/that the Constitution doesn't allow for it.
Nice try, your words state what they state no matter how you try to worm out of it.
Have another game?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.