BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
INDustry distribution
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-01-2008, 06:14 PM   #45
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What national interests would that include? There are a lot of national interests. Who decides what the military should pursue? It seems to me that the congress has the sole authority to declare war. We need to return to the idea that we donít go to war without declaring war. The U.S. military needs to go to war only when war is declared or for immediate self-defense to preserve life and property.
The elected representatives of the American people decide what tasks the military should accomplish. The Congress plays a role to play by declaring war and funding and the President has one as commander in chief.

When did we have the idea that we don't go to war without declaring war?

What is the substantive difference between Congress authorizing the use of military force and declaring war?

Quote:
The objection that I rose about public funding of the military was in regard to itís continuing to increase in order to build ďthe military beyond itís current capacityĒ every point in that paragraph. If it wasnít clear in my original paragraph, I hope it is now. Providing for the common defense is one of the few things that the federal government is responsible for doing, but in the order of fairness, the constitution does say that the U.S. is not to maintain a standing army (I am paraphrasing). This does not mean that I would want to dismantle the Army. It does mean that continuing to expand the military is not in a reasonable plan so that a president can serve the interest of his constituents.
My copy of the Constitution contains such a prohibition. Maybe you can point it out to me. The Constitution also contains no limitations as to when or how the military can be used except that it requires the approval of both political branches for sustained operations.

Quote:
It may not be appropriate for the military to be used for such border security. This is part of the point. Money that should go to border security is going instead to military that doesnít fulfill the primary purpose of protecting our nation from foreign invaders (even when they are individuals coming to work in the fields/restaurants/swinging a hammer/digging a ditch). I would hope there are ways to protect the borders and to allow larger numbers of legal immigrants to enter the U.S. Most important is keeping out illegal aliens.
Again, the people we elect get to decide how we prioritize the expenditure of public funds, hopefully within constitutional constraints.

Clearly our current representatives disagree with your priorities.

Quote:
That wasnít a speech. And in addition to the League of Democracies, he wrote of at least two other organizations he would form. And his idea of making a free trade area of the entire Middle East is stupid. McCain seems to think that he can take on all these new organizations and exert such influence on the new global order to serve his ideals. It is unrealistic (that is a nice way to say it).
Why is a free trade area a stupid proposal?

We clearly exert influence in organizations such as NATO, IMF, WTO, and the OAS. What makes the proposed organizations different?


Quote:
Amend the constitution to clarify that the right to life includes babies and the unborn.
Replace the federal income tax on business and individuals with something else (perhaps the fair tax).
Secure the nationís borders and then rework immigration policy.
Your proposed constitutional amendment is a pipe dream and even if it weren't it would not require any presidential action. Your focus on abortion would be more usefully focused on the courts.

Isn't the "something else" the big question? Or are you for change for change's sake?


Quote:
Ditto on the first sentence. Some candidates are too far away to be able to stand with them. The two major parties suck. Itís time for something new/old that is a better fit. It looks like the Democrats are well on their way to transformation into blatant socialism. The Republicans are well on their way to becoming democrats under the Republican banner. Another party appears to be the only alternative in 2008.
The two major parties are what we have. I am still waiting for why you believe republicans are moving left but since you cannot define "left" I guess you can't answer.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 08:21 PM   #46
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
Hey, how could 1/2 of the forum belive you were one of those two girls...

Anyway, Ganeil does not believe something is broken, that is the problem.
Yeah. That was a classic April Fool's joke. That was fun.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 09:45 PM   #47
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
The elected representatives of the American people decide...
What it comes down to is this:

The federal government is far too big. It needs to be scaled back. Republicans in congress have proven that they cannot achieve this. They promise, they put it in their party platform, they play it up in elections, then never deliver. They are simply another arm of the Democrat party seeking bigger and bigger federal government. This is unacceptable. I may not vote for any Republicans in November (local, state, and national).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution
Section 8 - Powers of Congress in the Constitution include the phrases:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
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;
The Constitution outlines the power of congress as it relates to war. The President does not have power to declare war. And it does matter, because the there are many things that congress and the president may do in time of war that they cannot do in time of peace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution
Article 1, Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This seems consistent with what I wrote. Since standing armies were not expected to be everpresent, but the militia was always to be existent and able to deal with invasion and imminent danger. We have no militia, so our standing Army (for right or wrong) has taken on that role.

So, my paraphrase of standing armies in the constitution drawn from memory apparently didn't come from the constitution, but from contemporaneous sources. One such source was Thomas Jefferson. I know you like to cite such things when it serves your purpose, so here are a few quotes for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363
As I already stated, "This does not mean that I would want to dismantle the Army". We don't have militias. So the Army should serve that purpose, not one of adventurism, acting on undeclared wars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill of Rights
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It may be apparent to you that I am not an absolutist in regard to the Constitution. My take is that the Constitution has been abused. There needs to be a newfound respect for the Constitution and the limits to government, while at the same time, the rights of every living person needs to be protected.

The people we elect needs to change. Re-electing the same losers will not make us winners. It's time to clean the slate.

In regard to free trade in the Middle East, I believe that I have commented/questioned McCain's position on that in the threads over here: http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum...ilt On Freedom

About taxes: I support the FairTax. I left my statement more open than that, because it is possible a better proposal would come about. Or simply a consumption tax that is not specifically the FairTax.

In regard to amending the constitution, you call it a pipe dream. With the Republican party, you may be correct:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RNC
2004 Republican Party Platform: on Abortion

Human Life Amendment to the Constitution

We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
For how many election cycles has some form of this statement been in the party platform? This is in no small part why I have little confidence in the Republican party. They have not done much with it in 35 years. This is awful. They led us on all these years so that you can call it a "pipe dream". You should be ashamed.

If you cannot see the leftward movement of the party, then that is because they haven't passed to your left yet.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto

Last edited by scottwww; 07-01-2008 at 10:18 PM.
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2008, 09:23 AM   #48
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
The federal government is far too big. It needs to be scaled back. Republicans in congress have proven that they cannot achieve this. They promise, they put it in their party platform, they play it up in elections, then never deliver. They are simply another arm of the Democrat party seeking bigger and bigger federal government. This is unacceptable. I may not vote for any Republicans in November (local, state, and national).
I agree that the federal government is larger than it should be but the problem is not the people we elect, it is the people. Remember what happened in 1995 when the new Republican majority actually tried to eliminate some departments, outrage among the people who had just elected them to do just that. I am convinced that many Americans like to complain about the size of government but the do not actually want anything done about it. The best we can hope for is limiting future growth and on that score Republicans are much better than Democrats. If you do not vote for Republicans, don't complain when Democrats win.

Quote:
The Constitution outlines the power of congress as it relates to war. The President does not have power to declare war. And it does matter, because the there are many things that congress and the president may do in time of war that they cannot do in time of peace.
The president as inherent Article 2 power as commander in chief over the armed forces irrespective of the Congress. I do not know what powers are exist when Congress passes a declaration of war that do not exist if they pass an authorization to use force. Care to elaborate?

Quote:
This seems consistent with what I wrote. Since standing armies were not expected to be everpresent, but the militia was always to be existent and able to deal with invasion and imminent danger. We have no militia, so our standing Army (for right or wrong) has taken on that role.
You do realize that the portion of the Constitution you cited is a limitation on the power of the states, not on the federal government?

We do have a militia today. See 10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Quote:
So, my paraphrase of standing armies in the constitution drawn from memory apparently didn't come from the constitution, but from contemporaneous sources. One such source was Thomas Jefferson. I know you like to cite such things when it serves your purpose, so here are a few quotes for you:
There is no doubt that Jefferson, among others opposed a standing army but as the quote you yourself cite, he realized the Constitution did not prohibit one.

Quote:
As I already stated, "This does not mean that I would want to dismantle the Army". We don't have militias. So the Army should serve that purpose, not one of adventurism, acting on undeclared wars.
Again, what is the substantive difference between Congress authorizing the use of military force and declaring war?

Quote:
In regard to amending the constitution, you call it a pipe dream. With the Republican party, you may be correct:
With the American people it is a pipe dream. Convince the people and the politicians will follow.

Quote:
For how many election cycles has some form of this statement been in the party platform? This is in no small part why I have little confidence in the Republican party. They have not done much with it in 35 years. This is awful. They led us on all these years so that you can call it a "pipe dream". You should be ashamed.
What exactly would you have liked them to do about it? Have they ever had a majority in either house to pass such an amendment? Are you looking for meaningless votes on Constitutional amendments that will not pass or meaningful acts like a ban on partial birth abortions and Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court?

I prefer actually getting something done so no shame here.

Quote:
If you cannot see the leftward movement of the party, then that is because they haven't passed to your left yet.
Why do you insist on using terms you do not understand?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2008, 10:28 AM   #49
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Why do you insist on using terms you do not understand?
What I don't understand is your claim that I don't understand. I would have replied to the rest of your post, but I am annoyed by your insistance that I do not undertand the meaning of "left". You are an asshole and I am done with you, asshole.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2008, 10:53 AM   #50
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What I don't understand is your claim that I don't understand. I would have replied to the rest of your post, but I am annoyed by your insistance that I do not undertand the meaning of "left". You are an asshole and I am done with you, asshole.
You have failed repeatedly to provide any type of explanation or definition. You refer to people who have spent a life time upholding conservative values and policies as leftists. You simply must not understand the term or you would not misuse it so often.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST