Where does it say in the constitution that there should be a cap on corp earnings?

Teak · #41 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back Atcha

As it always has. However, in the absence of the military-industrial complex, they had other ways of achieving this through the creation of militias and, if needed, a draft. Respond away.

Again, I never said there should be no army. If you look closely at what I wrote, I said "LARGE STANDING ARMY". I'm starting to understand how it is that you get so easily confused.

Yes this country relied upon a draft to raise a large enough army to fight in WW 1, WW 2, and Viet Nam, and in every case we went to war with an under trained, ill equipped force that took major casualties while learning what they should have already known, and acquiring equipment that should have already been "in service".

Our current standing military is to small to even support itself in combat. They must rely upon civilian contractors for logistic support. Totally unsatisfactory. And after 8 years of Clintoon neglect our forces again went into combat without the proper equipment (ie. body armor, and armored vehicles), and a shortage of precision guided munitions.

You argument is so weak on so many points as to be laughable.

Dom1 · #42 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back Atcha

As it always has. However, in the absence of the military-industrial complex, they had other ways of achieving this through the creation of militias and, if needed, a draft. Respond away.

Again, I never said there should be no army. If you look closely at what I wrote, I said "LARGE STANDING ARMY". I'm starting to understand how it is that you get so easily confused.

Militias would no longer be a viable option.

You said the Framers were against a standing army, if that is so then they are against it regardless of size, what part don't you understand?

Yes, there is a magic number. There is a point at which you can defend the borders and interests abroad without posing a threat to the armed citizens. Don't ask me what that number is, I don't know, I'm not a general or military planner.

Too funny.

Apples and Oranges. Slaves didn't pose a threat to the nation, not even if they all rebelled at once. And yes, some of the framers absolutely had a problem with slavery, but reasoned that in order to maintain the union for the purposes of commerce and protection from England and Spain, it best not to rock the boat too much during the formation of our young republic. But provisions were made so that it would be possible to rectify that at some point in the future.

Not being able to vote poses a threat to democracy!

Not apples and oranges. We are talking about what the Framers thought and their intent. They didn't allow women to vote, they didn't allow some free white men to vote, and they allowed for slavery. The fact is that the world changed and if the Framers wrote the Constitution today they wouldn't have allowed for slavery. They would have also recognized the need for a standing army.

Look, you can't have it both ways, either the Constitution allows for a standing army or it doesn't (I guarantee it doesn't prohibit one). You can't say it allows for one that comes in just below your "magic number", that is having it both ways.

Dom1 · #43 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

You argument is so weak on so many points as to be laughable.

Oh I don't know, I kind of enjoyed his magic number argument.

smart makes a comeback · #44 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

I agree completely. The constitution does provide for a navy. Today's Navy is far more than merely sailing ships tooting about the ocean. With aircraft carriers, submarines, the Marine Corp and our regular fleet we don't need a standing army to begin the defense of the country. We really are not in a position to be attacked by a large armed force from a foreign country (Mexicans want jobs, not war). I don't know about keeping a large army in foreign countries. That may not be a bad idea in the long run but I have to agree with Smart ass on this one, the Constitution does not provide for a standing army and many of the founding fathers absolutely were opposed to one.

NEVER let it be said I do not give credit where it is due....you got this one right Nathan