• The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    Today, 11:44 AM
    This specifically says land force.
    89 replies | 786 view(s)
  • The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    Today, 09:27 AM
    I'll be signing up, and if you give me a referral code, they'll give you a bonus. Also any advice from experienced lyfters is appreciated.
    0 replies | 53 view(s)
  • The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    Today, 09:08 AM
    I thought about that, but the only way to divide it would be to separate "would consider" and "committed to voting Trump no matter what happens." Since an election over a year away is hypothetical anyway, I figured no one would even quibble. Turns out someone else on the forum is as obsessed with completeness and symmetry as I am.
    68 replies | 772 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 05:30 AM
    It says I'm dead already.
    6 replies | 155 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    20 replies | 315 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
    89 replies | 786 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
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:18 AM
    Voyager sent linguistic messages in all human languages.
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 12:06 AM
    lol! out of ammo...
    89 replies | 786 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?
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 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
    89 replies | 786 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?
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 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?
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 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.
    89 replies | 786 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:03 PM
    And I’m the a-hole for recognizing it in 2015....
    89 replies | 786 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:56 PM
    Pretty sure this requires a Constitutional Amendment...
    89 replies | 786 view(s)
  • The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:09 PM
    I apologize for not getting you your sticker right when you voted. It is your birth right as an American to have "I voted" stickers. That being said, I don't think stickers are enough to get people voting on this one. We need to tell them that this is the most important election in the lifetime of this forum. Please ask all your friends to vote.
    68 replies | 772 view(s)
  • The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:04 PM
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
    68 replies | 772 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    8 replies | 221 view(s)
  • The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    06-17-2018, 05:11 PM
    People keep making these vague accusations but it never seems to happen when I'm around. Did he post Marx quotes before I joined?
    68 replies | 772 view(s)
  • The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    06-17-2018, 05:06 PM
    Be careful using inflammatory language like that. Satan may demand an apology.
    68 replies | 772 view(s)
  • The Rebel Poet's Avatar
    06-17-2018, 04:40 PM
    Based on what?
    68 replies | 772 view(s)
More Activity

167 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Yeah he has my respect.
  2. View Conversation
    I wasn't calling the reformed position dumb, I was saying you were acting like a dumbass.
  3. View Conversation
    I've had him on my ignore list for the past month, I'm not one to have extended conversations with people who openly associate with cults, but he is particularly not worth ANYONE's time in my estimation.
  4. View Conversation
    The Wiki article had two sources, but only one link. In the link that was there, I didn't see a quote. If it isn't true, you might want to consider editing it; it is Wikipedia, after all.

    You should read other NRx blogs and such, you'd probably find a lot to like. There's a big theonomist contingent, though to be fair, it is probably the smallest of the three wings. You're definitely right that I would want to run a society much differently than the US is now, or has ever been. I do like the Constitution insofar as it serves my values, by the US as a construct has always been a product of my much-hated modernity.

    I do have some questions about theonomy:

    1. Would a theonomic civilization allow anyone to leave for any reason?
    2. Would they allow secession for a contingent in their controlled geographic area who disagree with them?
    3. What would stop someone from conspiring to falsely accuse someone of a capital crime such as homosexuality? What would the standard of evidence be?
  5. View Conversation
    I kind of think you and Sola throw around the word idolatry a little too loosely. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything that makes me think pledging allegiance is idolatry.

    In fact, a lot of the main guys in the Bible suck up to the Kings a little too much for my taste, but nowhere is it suggested that they are sinning. I think idolatry is a pretty literal thing, I think there's a difference between being overly attached to something, and worshiping it.
  6. View Conversation
    Do you think it was immoral of David to froth around and act insane, and to deceive the enemies while being employed by them? What about working for them, was that wrong too?

    My point was actually that you still oppose things from more of a libertarian view, than a theonomist view, not saying that's bad. Just an observation.
  7. Sola, I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I'm just curious, do you agree with Engelsma that we should be dividing over eschatology? Even OTC doesn't go that far.

    Mind you, I believe that today's society is way too "tolerant" and afraid to stand for truth, but I think Christians dividing over eschatology is more than God would ask of us.
  8. View Conversation
    No, not recently. I'll try to take the time to read through those threads.
  9. View Conversation
    Then he will see theonomy get trounced.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 167
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
About Christian Liberty

Basic Information

About Christian Liberty
Interests:
Theology, political discussion, strategy games, writing
Occupation:
Student

Signature


This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
19,680
Posts Per Day
10.09
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
167
Most Recent Message
06-29-2016 11:33 PM
General Information
Last Activity
05-17-2018 07:59 PM
Join Date
02-15-2013
Referrals
2

25 Friends

  1. Anti Federalist Anti Federalist is offline

    Member

    Anti Federalist
  2. Brett85 Brett85 is offline

    Member

    Brett85
  3. ClydeCoulter ClydeCoulter is offline

    Member

    ClydeCoulter
  4. DonVolaric DonVolaric is offline

    Member

    DonVolaric
  5. eduardo89 eduardo89 is offline

    Banned

    eduardo89
  6. erowe1 erowe1 is offline

    Member

    erowe1
  7. Feeding the Abscess
  8. green73 green73 is offline

    Member

    green73
  9. GunnyFreedom GunnyFreedom is offline

    Agent of Freedom

    GunnyFreedom
  10. gwax23 gwax23 is offline

    Banned

    gwax23
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 25
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
View Christian Liberty's Blog

Recent Entries

I'm Done

by Christian Liberty on 07-27-2013 at 06:53 PM
I'm so sick of seeing "Support our troops" or even worse "Fighting for our freedoms."

During a trip to Word of Life for a week of camp I saw a bumper sticker that said "God bless our troops, especially our snipers."

Usually, when trying to prove a point about war, I don't discuss the troops. I'll probably continue to do this. One teacher I had was open minded to listening to what I had to say about war, but had a father who had served in

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

11-10-2016

  • 07:06 PM - Hidden

No results to display...
Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast

03-30-2018


01-05-2018


01-01-2018


10-01-2017


07-18-2017


06-26-2017


06-25-2017


02-19-2017


01-29-2017


01-23-2017


01-22-2017


01-08-2017



Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast