• GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:42 AM
    Because you understand the Constitution better than they guy who actually wrote it. Got it. :D
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:34 AM
    called. it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523327-Trump-to-start-US-Space-Force&p=6642262&viewfull=1#post6642262
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:22 AM
    And before you make a snide remark about flintlocks and quill pens, the Framer's original intent was that the right to bear arms extended to the equal armament common to military use, and the original intent of freedom of speech extended to all manner of expression. Whereas the original intent of the Army was a land based combat force, and the Navy a sea based combat force. Original intent is a thing. maybe you should look it up.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:18 AM
    Voyager sent linguistic messages in all human languages.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:17 AM
    The Constituion clearly authorizes two Departments. Army, and Navy. This covers land and sea. If they want a force for the Air, they need to amend the Constitution. If they want a force for Space, they need to amend the Constitution. Original Intent. The Framers did not originally intend aircraft and spaceships.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:08 AM
    .... until there is a 'public' on Mars, which seems to be in the works as we speak, so his point remains.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:06 AM
    lol! out of ammo...
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:05 AM
    You don't get to wish whatever you want into the Constitution. The Constitution authorized two branches. An Army branch and a Navy branch. Any military force must either reside under one of the two Constitutionally authorized branches, or a Constitutional Amendment must be made to amend the Constitution to authorize a third branch. This isn't rocket science, and I know you are smarter than this. Is this deliberate, or is this just an example of Trumgasming?
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:58 PM
    So yeah, you are claiming to understand the Constitution better than the guy who wrote it. James Madison wrote in The Virginia Report, 1800, by the Virginia House of Delegates, that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:54 PM
    All of this was during James Madison's Presidency. Again, the guy who actually....wrote....the Constitution: From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps#Establishment_of_the_modern_Marine_Corps
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:51 PM
    You should demand a refund from your history professor. That base in Georgia that James Madison established in 1811 for Marines to operate out of? Yeah, you didn't know anything about that at all, did you?
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:50 PM
    LMAO! James Madison wrote the Constitution, but Swordsmyth here understands it better than the guy who...you know...actually wrote it... John Adams signed the Act into law to form the Marines in 1798. James Madison served 1809-1817 and continued to utilize the Marines in 1811. Clearly the guy who wrote the Constitution thought they were Constitutional.... Because they were organized under the Constitutional Department of the Navy. smdh.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:43 PM
    No, the Army and Navy provisions are organizational. The Army Air Corps was organized under the Department of the Army. The same people who wrote the Constitution also created the Marine Corps and put them under the Department of the Navy. Are you claiming that the same people who wrote the Constitution did not know how to understand the words that they, themselves wrote?
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:41 PM
    The Marine Corps was raised up by an Act of the Continental Congress on 10 November 1775, and then again in the Constitutional era on 27 March 1794. The Marines were used extensively as an “Army Afloat” for amphibious raids and land marches like the assault on Derna right from the start. Their role did not actually depend on the Navy from the origins of the organization. If what you were claiming was correct, then Congress would have formed the Marines as a “Water Army” branch instead of putting them under the Department of the Navy in order to retain full Constitutionality. The proper method of Constitutional interpretation is Original Intent. The same people who wrote the Constitution had already dealt with the formation of another kind of military branch, and we can see that original intent in that act. Only two military departments are authorized in the Constitution. If you want more than two, amend it. I happen to agree that that we need an Air Force. Until we amend the Constitution, it needs to remain under the Department of the Army.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:23 PM
    Why not have 80 Departments of the Army? You are doing the the exact same bizarre interpretation dance that gave us the FDA, Department of Education, the Drug War, Wickard v Filburn and more. That’s not the way the Constitution is supposed to work. You can’t just retcon whatever you want into the Constitution. That’s how the Swamp operates.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:18 PM
    That sounds like justification for anything you can dream of. After all, the drug war is just a function of interstate commerce, right? Sorry, words have meaning. You don’t get to run around changing the meaning of words in order to shoe-horn whatever the hell you want I to the Constitution. That’s how the left is trying to neuter the Second Amendment. “Regulated” and all that. Article 1 Section 8 authorizes ONE Army and ONE Navy, so even if we took your absurdity as an “Air Army” it still doesn’t work. The provision is organizational, not connotative. When it was the Army Air Corps it was under the Department of the Army and therefore Constitutional. In order to become it’s own organizational branch it requires a Constitutional Amendment. This should be blatant on it’s face. Don’t get carried away by wishful thinking.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:05 PM
    Just because the government does it, doesn’t automagically make it Constitutional. In order to have a US Air Force that is not the Army Air Corps, requires a Constitutional Amendment. If you seriously got an Air Force out of Article 1 Section 8, then I don’t think I’ve got anything to help you.
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:03 PM
    And I’m the a-hole for recognizing it in 2015....
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:56 PM
    Pretty sure this requires a Constitutional Amendment...
    77 replies | 408 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    3 replies | 72 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:18 PM
    Trump is pulling 40 percent favorable on RPF's . That translates to another victory once the DNC selects the opponent .
    66 replies | 657 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:02 PM
    I am prepared to accept north korean surrender .
    4 replies | 59 view(s)
  • AuH20's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:02 PM
    <Gulp!> 1008773728015126529
    114 replies | 1372 view(s)
  • AuH20's Avatar
    114 replies | 1372 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:45 PM
    Yes , but there would be lots of nuts in Vegas and when you question a few thousand people it would show up .
    7 replies | 101 view(s)
  • AuH20's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:44 PM
    He basically labeled Stewart a Nazi. Really low blows.
    12 replies | 190 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:40 PM
    That's interesting. Nevada's one of the few places RP ever placed well in when he ran for POTUS...
    7 replies | 101 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:18 PM
    Rumors are between Danke and the Somalian cab drivers it may have dropped it five spots minimum.
    7 replies | 101 view(s)
  • AuH20's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:14 PM
    Imagine a relatively watertight room filling up with water. Libertarians want to claw through the concrete walls with their bare fingernails, rather than to attempt shut off the accessible valve.
    12 replies | 190 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:58 PM
    Here are 10 of the top 11 nutjob states from a study written about 6/17 /18 for the AP by an Olivia Goodhill, study by Ryan Murphy Southern Methodist University .It includes just 48 states and not DC . Connecticut , California , New Jersey , New York , Maine , Wisconsin , Nevada , Illinois , Virginia and Maryland . Here are the nine with the least nutjobs , West Virginia , Vermont , Tenn , North Carolina , New Mexico , Oklahoma , Montana , Mississippi , Indiana . Danke comes in middle of the road at #32 , not as good as AF ( New Hampshire ) at 11th best . ( Alaska & Hawaii not included but probably full of nutjobs )
    7 replies | 101 view(s)
More Activity

18 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    I think you might appreciate this post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433537
  2. View Conversation
    LOL do try again.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family That link you posted about the Ludwig von Mises Institute is funded by the Koch Family. In fact Americans for Prosperity has backed Romney but not Ron Paul. Ironic isn't it?
  3. View Conversation
    Seriously since what have you done for the Ron Paul movement as a whole insisted of posting just here for two years?
  4. View Conversation
    Don't Worry i am Sure Ted Cruz Is just coming around!
  5. Your inbox is full. People cannot PM you.
  6. View Conversation
    Just wondering, who are you on there? I'm Lord Brennus.
  7. View Conversation
    So do you post on RO?
  8. View Conversation
    How are you online so late always?
  9. View Conversation
    Why do you keep getting banned? What does it say?
  10. View Conversation
    Liked the page, I'll share it later.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 18
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
About compromise

Basic Information

Political Campaign Skills
Campaign Workers:
Fund Raiser, Pollster
Copywriters:
Language Skill, Researcher

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
5,516
Posts Per Day
2.68
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
18
Most Recent Message
02-26-2014 05:15 PM
General Information
Last Activity
07-15-2014 03:48 PM
Join Date
10-27-2012
Referrals
1

92 Friends

  1. AJ Antimony AJ Antimony is offline

    Member

    AJ Antimony
  2. amy31416 amy31416 is offline

    Member

    amy31416
  3. angelatc angelatc is offline

    Member

    angelatc
  4. Article V Article V is offline

    Member

    Article V
  5. asurfaholic asurfaholic is offline

    Member

    asurfaholic
  6. AuH20 AuH20 is offline

    Member

    AuH20
  7. austin944 austin944 is offline

    Member

    austin944
  8. BamaAla BamaAla is offline

    Member

    BamaAla
  9. Barrex Barrex is offline

    Member

    Barrex
  10. Bastiat's The Law
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 92
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
No results to display...
No results to display...

11-28-2017