Tab Content
  • pcosmar's Avatar
    Today, 08:59 AM
    Nope,, it's the Conservative Hippies. ;)
    11 replies | 152 view(s)
  • William Tell's Avatar
    Today, 08:32 AM
    The establishment was decimated at this year's convention. The RPT finally has a state party and chairman that is willing to actually fight for the liberty principles in the party platform and censure elected officials who defy the grassroots.
    11 replies | 152 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    0 replies | 10 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    Today, 07:31 AM
    Hopefully this will be a feature in their self-driving cars. Only on the inside.
    3 replies | 104 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    Today, 07:25 AM
    I think it should go through Congress. Having said that, 10% is laughable when you compare it to what other countries charge. That's not even an escalation. That's more like, "why even bother?" -type figures.
    1 replies | 68 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 05:30 AM
    It says I'm dead already.
    3 replies | 104 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    19 replies | 288 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:42 AM
    Because you understand the Constitution better than they guy who actually wrote it. Got it. :D
    81 replies | 614 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
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:18 AM
    Voyager sent linguistic messages in all human languages.
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:06 AM
    lol! out of ammo...
    81 replies | 614 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?
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 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
    81 replies | 614 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?
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 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?
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 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.
    81 replies | 614 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:03 PM
    And Iím the a-hole for recognizing it in 2015....
    81 replies | 614 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:56 PM
    Pretty sure this requires a Constitutional Amendment...
    81 replies | 614 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:57 PM
    I don't give A Rat's Ass.
    9 replies | 400 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    19 replies | 288 view(s)
More Activity

105 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Don't forget, the RAGE is tonight! (10 PM - 1 AM ET)
  2. View Conversation
    I'm like a jet pilot ace blasting through outerspace taking your words flying 10,000 feet above 'em and throwing my hammer down and resting my case. And when I stared down your god and he couldn't look me in the face I bitchslapped him back to that Middle Eastern place and told him to rewrite that book he traced. The logical fallacies all the contradictories the lack of knowledge and of the histories and that makes it a mystery more like a silly entity, a human effigy just a chapter in a book we call intellectual misery. I'm a heretic on steroids because I seek truth but you lack the intellectual proof to explain the religious fallback of metaphysical spoof. I'm the big bad wolf piggy looks like you're gonna need a new roof cuz when I huff and puff the framework of your god crumbles to the ground while this wolf stands tall--Bulletproof
  3. View Conversation
    LOL nice one, I'mma come back with something good though.
  4. View Conversation
    23.45 degree tilt on the earth's axis not a huff and a puff on the 7th day when a god relaxes causes this tilt and it makes your theory wilt like a flower your god has no power. hes an abstract concept that gets more abstract the more we know and the more we know the further he gets so place your bets kids, theocrat's in room 101 with propaganda pouring out his eyelids.
  5. View Conversation
    If you come back on tonight, please visit the chatroom.
  6. View Conversation
    ANTI-FED CRUSADE ROOTED IN THE BIBLE?

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...09#post2984909
  7. Haha, word. Good company
  8. Don't know if your into hip hop or not, but I really love this guy.

    He's the reason I know what soli deo gloria is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbhhBQeudBc
  9. View Conversation
    This one's for you buddy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23K44s1H4nc
  10. View Conversation
    The odds of my non-vote changing the outcome are almost non-existent. Likewise, the odds of your vote making a difference are 60 million:1. If you really think the argument that "All I was saying is by your refusal to vote, you just increase the likelihood that someone, like a communist voter, will elect their candidate to office." will fly, you're hopelessly delusional. My argument still stands solid.
Showing Visitor Messages 21 to 30 of 105
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
About Theocrat

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)

Signature


"Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

"Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality... By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases." - Dr. Ron Paul

Contact


This Page
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?4634-Theocrat&s=e26e49a4c7f67a9cc803d0f057718585
Instant Messaging

Send an Instant Message to Theocrat Using...

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
9,132
Posts Per Day
2.34
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
105
Most Recent Message
01-31-2016 11:07 AM
General Information
Last Activity
06-17-2018 08:30 PM
Join Date
10-04-2007
Referrals
4

245 Friends

  1. A. Havnes A. Havnes is offline

    Member

    A. Havnes
  2. acptulsa acptulsa is offline

    Member

    acptulsa
  3. AFPVet AFPVet is offline

    Member

    AFPVet
  4. allyinoh allyinoh is offline

    Member

    allyinoh
  5. Alternative 336 Alternative 336 is offline

    Member

    Alternative 336
  6. american.swan american.swan is offline

    Member

    american.swan
  7. ammorris ammorris is offline

    Member

    ammorris
  8. amonasro amonasro is offline

    Member

    amonasro
  9. amy31416 amy31416 is offline

    Member

    amy31416
  10. angelatc angelatc is offline

    Member

    angelatc
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 245
Page 1 of 25 12311 ... LastLast

11-07-2016

  • 08:25 AM - Hidden

06-18-2016


No results to display...
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

11-20-2016


11-16-2016


11-13-2016


11-10-2016


11-07-2016

  • 04:56 PM - Hidden

11-02-2016


10-22-2016


08-23-2016


08-21-2016


08-16-2016


08-15-2016


08-13-2016



Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast