Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
46. OK then there is a theoretical logical basis
Sat Oct 19, 2013, 10:08 AM
Oct 2013

for his assertion... Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has visited that issue at least twice and found that it was entirely legit...

I agree about the inherent contradiction in anti-tax plus pro-big-military.

My father is a Midwest farmer, and he thinks it would be great to cut the budgets for every single federal program at a flat percentage rate of 2 / 3 % - except the military, of course. I was visiting a few weeks ago, and after a Middle East cable news segment he mentioned how 'they' have no respect for life, keep blowing 'each other' up, etc. I asked him if he had any idea how many people we blew up over the past 12 years, and mentioned that there had never been a recorded suicide bombing in Iraq until our second invasion, he completely shifted gears (that's different, of course - 'they' shouldn't have came after the Twin Towers). When I asserted the obvious - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - he went into smirk mod - 'you're sure about that?'

When you have the world's most powerful military, by far, the best thing you can do is ensure that it is implemented in theater as little as possible...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Constitution? brucefan Oct 2013 #1
Well that is till they get to that 2nd amendment nt meadowlark5 Oct 2013 #2
well yeah.. that's where they stop. Voice for Peace Oct 2013 #16
No, they go a little farther than that jmowreader Oct 2013 #17
That is rich... RiverNoord Oct 2013 #25
Yes, it can get dumber than that. Michele Bachmann. n/t IllinoisBirdWatcher Oct 2013 #28
Well, the teabagger was about six foot...does that count? jmowreader Oct 2013 #30
OK then there is a theoretical logical basis RiverNoord Oct 2013 #46
Heck, they are still arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional: truebluegreen Oct 2013 #34
Have you heard the best tax protester argument? jmowreader Oct 2013 #43
Wow - that's a whopper RiverNoord Oct 2013 #49
Some moran once told me everything past the Tenth Amendment was invalid jmowreader Oct 2013 #50
Um... that's a completely legitimate point RiverNoord Oct 2013 #47
In reality, if the SCOTUS says a law is constitutional, then it is... truebluegreen Oct 2013 #48
Nah, Constitution is ONLY about owning guns to these morons. nt valerief Oct 2013 #6
Paper? freebrew Oct 2013 #12
Close? Like in tactical nukes close? hobbit709 Oct 2013 #3
Horseshoes, hand grenades, and atomic bombs. Sometimes close is all it takes. Coyotl Oct 2013 #4
Exactly, and the media has ProSense Oct 2013 #5
Violate it how? MFrohike Oct 2013 #23
Because while the President would be obeying the 14th amendment, he would be breaking stevenleser Oct 2013 #40
I'm a bit confused MFrohike Oct 2013 #44
The issue was that 2naSalit Oct 2013 #51
You're confused MFrohike Oct 2013 #52
Okay 2naSalit Oct 2013 #53
That's half my life MFrohike Oct 2013 #54
That's why I say.... Swede Atlanta Oct 2013 #7
DITTO Iliyah Oct 2013 #8
Works for me! nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #9
As much as I'd like to see them loaded into a C-130 davidpdx Oct 2013 #33
K&R!! I'm sure most Re/Teapuke have committed several crimes for which they should've been arrested. hue Oct 2013 #10
Everyone knows the only REAL part about the Constitution is to have guns, guns joeybee12 Oct 2013 #11
Its not much different than unrelenting reliance on the "commerce clause". 1-Old-Man Oct 2013 #14
Question 90-percent Oct 2013 #13
Hey, hey! Give him credit! He autographed an American flag. xfundy Oct 2013 #31
The Shutdown is unconstitutional ashling Oct 2013 #15
There is the other possibility nobody seems to want to think about mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #18
actually... mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #19
Tired MFrohike Oct 2013 #22
"Laws are for little people." eppur_se_muova Oct 2013 #20
I think what they might want paulkienitz Oct 2013 #21
Yes. This... mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #29
there's one big problem with this scenario paulkienitz Oct 2013 #39
Good point. And it made me curious. mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #41
think daily, not monthly paulkienitz Oct 2013 #42
The Constitution. In GOP circles, it's better known as "that g/ddamn piece of paper." blkmusclmachine Oct 2013 #24
Bushitler circles. lonestarnot Oct 2013 #27
So who would have standing to take them to court, and what would be the punishment of violating Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #26
Similarly, what statute would they be in violation of? truebluegreen Oct 2013 #35
Exactly.... Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #38
"Close"? After 9-11 they couldn't trash it fast enough. nt Hekate Oct 2013 #32
When they were sworn into Congress.. they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA.. Cha Oct 2013 #36
Gosh, what was that constant drumbeat that this is not Sedition? Katashi_itto Oct 2013 #37
If rethugs are so concerned about the debt ThomThom Oct 2013 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nat'l Journal: Republican...»Reply #46