Tab Content
  • ThePaleoLibertarian's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:49 PM
    Yes, antifa was such a nice and peaceful group before fascist Darumph took office.
    15 replies | 183 view(s)
  • ThePaleoLibertarian's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:48 PM
    The Eric Clanton trial is the real one to watch. Antifa has always been protected by police indifference in California or Oregon. They hardly ever even get arrested.
    15 replies | 183 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:42 AM
    Because you understand the Constitution better than they guy who actually wrote it. Got it. :D
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:34 AM
    called. it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523327-Trump-to-start-US-Space-Force&p=6642262&viewfull=1#post6642262
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:18 AM
    Voyager sent linguistic messages in all human languages.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:08 AM
    .... until there is a 'public' on Mars, which seems to be in the works as we speak, so his point remains.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:06 AM
    lol! out of ammo...
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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?
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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?
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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?
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 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.
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:03 PM
    And I’m the a-hole for recognizing it in 2015....
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 10:56 PM
    Pretty sure this requires a Constitutional Amendment...
    93 replies | 953 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 12:26 PM
    This ignorance is reason enough for me to ignore the rest of the article. I don't have any idea what property rights have to do with a MIC CEO getting paid with stolen money, or poor people that are poor because their government is stealing from them.
    6 replies | 179 view(s)
  • ThePaleoLibertarian's Avatar
    06-15-2018, 08:47 PM
    I have absolutely no sympathy for the "victim". Good riddance. The criminal element can be justly wiped out by peaceful people. Saved someone else the trouble, possibly reacting to a far worse crime.
    76 replies | 1027 view(s)
  • ThePaleoLibertarian's Avatar
    06-15-2018, 05:05 AM
    I've said this in the very thread we're posting in but, I guess you missed it; Rand could not have won the nomination. It wouldn't have mattered what he did. Rand couldn't beat Trump. Nobody did and nobody could. He could have gotten out of single digits.
    111 replies | 2039 view(s)
  • ThePaleoLibertarian's Avatar
    06-15-2018, 05:00 AM
    Except I was talking about the problems of Rand's campaign at the time when most others on RPF were calling me overly worried or even a saboteur. In fact, I think among the peanut gallery, whistling through the graveyard, unwilling to accept the trouble that Rand's campaign was clearly in. I never once said that Rand should act like Trump. That would have been ridiculous and struck a totally false note. The only person who benefited from acting like Trump in 2016 was Trump. I did say that Rand should make immigration as a major component of his campaign and emphasize his opposition to birthright citizenship. That would have helped and I was saying that since I joined RPF, long before Trump even announced his candidacy. Cruz appealed to Reagan "conservatives" and Rubio appealed to neocons. They knew who their audience was. Rand didn't. He had one foot in the liberty movement, the other foot in the mainstream GOP and failed to really connect to either camp. It was bad strategy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it's true.
    111 replies | 2039 view(s)
  • ThePaleoLibertarian's Avatar
    06-14-2018, 04:32 AM
    I want to scream at these feminists. Men are not just defective women. Boys are not just defective girls. Men acting differently than women doesn't mean that something is wrong with men. Stop assuming that female behavior is the default and that any deviation from that is indicative of some sort of problem.
    36 replies | 541 view(s)
  • ThePaleoLibertarian's Avatar
    06-14-2018, 04:28 AM
    Again, for the third time, show me a time where I praised Trump in a sycophantic or overly myopic way. Do this or I have been proven right, as all can see. Ah, "vibes". Yes, such great epistemological rigor. Tax cuts can be populist but you have to make the emotional argument, not heady economic ones.
    111 replies | 2039 view(s)
More Activity
About TommyJeff

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
724
Posts Per Day
0.58
General Information
Last Activity
09-11-2017 11:25 AM
Join Date
01-25-2015
Referrals
0

5 Friends

  1. GunnyFreedom GunnyFreedom is offline

    Agent of Freedom

    GunnyFreedom
  2. Peace&Freedom Peace&Freedom is offline

    Member

    Peace&Freedom
  3. TaftFan TaftFan is offline

    Member

    TaftFan
  4. The Gold Standard
  5. ThePaleoLibertarian
Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

09-19-2017


03-09-2017


03-08-2017


02-26-2017


02-25-2017


02-21-2017


02-20-2017


02-19-2017


02-17-2017


02-16-2017


02-15-2017



Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast