Anti-Christian attitudes in the U.S.? Would Jesus use this much electricity?

[Kuciwalker]

Congress has the right to raise an army. The Constitution doesn't say for how long, except to note that Congress must renew appropriations for the army every two years.

[Dr Strangelove]

Intersting how a discussion of holiday season political correctness lapsed into an argument about the second amendment. I would not have thought that gun ownership would be a big issue among Christians what with all that "turn the other cheek" stuff. Maybe it's just me, but this discussion seems inappropriate for a thread about Christmas.

[FredKarno]

Indeed. I think that this thread has strayed off-topic somewhat, which I beleive was something to do wiv Jesus and electricity. I must say I love electricity, but not Jesus, who was not born on the 25th of December. Lenin loved electricity, but I hate Lenin, though I don't hate Jesus though I am a devout atheist. I hate Blair who claims to be a devout Christian yet no doubt loves electricity too. Come to think of it, the Christians Bush and Blair love all sorts of energy. High-explosive (non-mass destruction type) seems to be their favourite. Halleluja! Their god Jesus would surely approve?

[Sava]

someone's old DL!!

[Jaguar]

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gian, chegitz is right. Congress has the power to raise the armies to fight the wars Congress declares, not keep them into perpetuity. And if you look at US history, this is how Congress operated for the most part up until actual wars were being waged.

I don't think he is right at all. There is nothing wrong with having a peace-time military. It is always good for defense. It would be wrong and highly irresponsible to disband it because one commie thinks it is wrong to have one.

[MRT144]

fez, surely we must defend ourselves from mexico using nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

isnt this what the national gaurd is for? not an offensive military?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by MRT144
fez, surely we must defend ourselves from mexico using nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

isnt this what the national gaurd is for? not an offensive military?

I don't agree. I think we should have a standing military. It is important to counter threats in the world. There is nothing wrong with it. A peace-time Army is not un-democratic. It would be idiotic to say it is. A national guard is just not enough for a country like the US. It just won't cut it.

[MRT144]

fez, how many military attacks have there been on the U.S. in the last 50 years. how many of these attacks could have been handled by the national gaurd.

sure a standing army isnt un democratic, but certainly the money could be better spent on the people of the nation.

secondly, your debate skills are terrible. learn to come up with things besides your own assertions.

[General Ludd]

The constitutation was written to protect the the United States from standing armies because standing armies where the tool that the european monarchies used to assert their authority over their people (and justify ridiculous taxes - for a popular example) and wage war, aswell as the obvious concern of what hapens when a country has a standing army with no purpose - the army will look for something to do, and the country then starts to be controled by the military as much, if not more, as it is by 'the people'.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MRT144
fez, how many military attacks have there been on the U.S. in the last 50 years. how many of these attacks could have been handled by the national gaurd.

sure a standing army isnt un democratic, but certainly the money could be better spent on the people of the nation.

secondly, your debate skills are terrible. learn to come up with things besides your own assertions.

Let's see . . . . . .



a terrorist attack on 9/11/01.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by MRT144
fez, how many military attacks have there been on the U.S. in the last 50 years. how many of these attacks could have been handled by the national gaurd.

sure a standing army isnt un democratic, but certainly the money could be better spent on the people of the nation.

secondly, your debate skills are terrible. learn to come up with things besides your own assertions.

A national guard would have helped the US when it was confronting Hitler's aggression? Would it have helped the US with the vicious Soviet Union around? Would it have helped with terrorists around? No. It would not of been enough. A standing army is a necessity and only braindead liberals think about disbanding it. That is not only illogical, it is downright idiotic. There is plenty of money for the people and the military in the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did Rush Limbaugh need help?

I'd say he did. As rich as he may be, he's nothing compared to the national mainstream media. He didn't have enough cash and influence to keep his medical records private.

And privacy issues are something that no other organization really covers. The NRA is more than able to deal with any 2nd Amendment threats, whether big or small.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by MrFun



Let's see . . . . . .



a terrorist attack on 9/11/01.

all the military in the world couldnt stop that from happening, dolt.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


A national guard would have helped the US when it was confronting Hitler's aggression? Would it have helped the US with the vicious Soviet Union around? Would it have helped with terrorists around? No. It would not of been enough. A standing army is a necessity and only braindead liberals think about disbanding it. That is not only illogical, it is downright idiotic. There is plenty of money for the people and the military in the US.

i guess you and have a gross difference on opinions on what "defending the nation" means. To me that doesnt mean having armies abroad, in countries we have no business being in. Im an isolationsist.

and there is not plenty of money. what happened to balancing the budget. cut government programs, NOW!