Rand Paul on Mitt Romney

The presence of the Third Amendment in the Bill of Rights is not evidence contradicting the statement that you quoted.

From post #32, quoted by you in post #35:

"Not all Founders were solidly against foreign entanglements."

In your reply you cited the Third Amendment, apparently meaning that it's inclusion somehow contradicts that statement of mine that you quoted. So the contradiction would go something like this: BECAUSE there is a Third Amendment, we can conclude that all Founders WERE solidly against foreign entanglements.

. Originally Posted by mastermind238

The majority were for it , thus it was there, some may conclude.

My point was that pointed headed Tea Nuts use the Constitution as the basis for this bloated military complex.

When in fact the majority of our founding fathers were against a large standing army.

I haven't seen a poll, but I do believe the majority of the Founders were against a standing army, as you said.

I haven't seen a poll, but I do believe the majority of the Founders were against a standing army, as you said. Originally Posted by mastermind238

That may have been true in 1789, but by 1792 many had reason to change their minds.

See @: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=36

That may have been true in 1789, but by 1792 many had reason to change their minds.

See @: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=36 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

http://kevincraig.us/tempsec.htm



What is the opposite of "LIBERTY?" The answer is: SLAVERY. What is the opposite of "SAFETY?" Some might answer: DANGER. But that's not the correct answer in this context. In the context of Ben Franklin and the American Revolution, the opposite of "SAFETY" is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Samuel Adams said the opposite of SAFETY is "the animating contest of freedom." And in certain situations, Sam Adams said the opposite of LIBERTY is WEALTH. Here is the quote from Sam Adams. "Tranquility" is what Franklin described as "temporary safety":
America's Founding Fathers would say that Americans today are slaves. Wealthy slaves, but still slaves. Slaves that enjoy luxury and tranquility, but still slaves.
Sam Adams tossed tea into the Boston Harbor rather than be subjected to a tax of 3 pence per pound. How much tax do you pay on each gallon of gas you buy?

That may have been true in 1789, but by 1792 many had reason to change their minds.

See @: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=36 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

True or not, the fact is that in 1792 no nation had the means to transport the numbers of troops needed to fight a land war on another continent. In 1792, "foreign entanglements" from the perspective of a US politician really meant NAVAL entanglements. The Napoleonic Wars were fought on the Continent with hundreds of thousands of troops. (Disputes on the North American continent with Mexico and Canada are a different matter. When military action against those nations was called for, fears about a "standing army" were understandably suppressed.)

(Yes, British troops were present in great numbers in the Colonies, but Britain had plenty of time to build up those troop numbers. It wasn't like they needed a D-Day style invasion force.)

In the early days of the Republic, we were perfectly capable of projecting naval power, and did so frequently. Thomas Jefferson made liberal use of the Navy in his battles with the Barbary Pirates. This was necessary because British naval power, quite understandably, was no longer available to us to protect merchant ships from pirate raids. The first line of the Marine Corp Hymn goes "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ..." Neither of those places is exactly local.

Between 1794 and 1802, France and Britain were pretty much in a continual state of war. And unlike the Napoleonic Wars on the continent, this was primarily a naval affair, as Britain was ... an island! As I said previously, some Founders favored joining the French against the British, for many reasons - because they supported the goals of the French Revolution, or to show gratitude for the help the French gave us in the Revolutionary war, or just because of residual hatred for the British because of their brutality in trying to put down the Revolution. Some (perhaps even more) favored joining the British side because they saw greater potential in improving trade relations with Britain than with France.

The fact is that there was no logical connection between the Founder's "fear of a standing army" and the Founder's sentiments regarding military (again, primarily naval) engagements with or between foreign powers. A standing army on the North American continent was entirely irrelevant to these "foreign entanglements" on the European continent, and would remain so until we developed the means to transport troops in large numbers across the Atlantic. Think WWI.

True or not, the fact is that in 1792 no nation had the means to transport the numbers of troops needed to fight a land war on another continent. . . . Originally Posted by mastermind238

The point of my post, mostly for WTF, was that the Founding Fathers did fear standing armies at the time they wrote the Constitution. They believed a standing army was both unnecessary and to be feared. The source of that fear can be traced back to England's experience with Cromwell's New Model Army. However, the Founding Fathers were soon bloodily educated on the matter of whether a standing army was “unnecessary”, and they made changes accordingly.

I wouldn't necessarily limit the notion of "foreign entanglements" to naval affairs. The presence of British forces in Canada were a very real concern for this nascent Republic. This fact is borne out by the ensuing War of 1812 with Great Britain. More to the point, I believe the “foreign entanglements” that Washington and the Founding Fathers were referring to were “treaties” requiring quid pro quo action, such as contributed to the origin of WWI.

However, the only real quibble I have with your post is your assertion that no nation possessed the ability to project force beyond its borders and your diminution of Great Britain’s ability to do so. Great Britain deployed armies to Spain and India to engage French forces and “Citizen Tippoo” in combat during the Napoleonic Wars. Britain transported Wellington’s army to fight Napoleon at Waterloo. And Napoleon invaded Egypt and planned to fortify France’s claim to the Louisiana Territory if he hadn’t lost an army to Toussaint L'Ouverture in Haiti. They had the ability, and they exercised it accordingly.

Sam Adams tossed tea into the Boston Harbor rather than be subjected to a tax of 3 pence per pound. How much tax do you pay on each gallon of gas you buy? Originally Posted by WTF

There has to be some rational middle ground. Your perpetual argument that the Founding Father’s were against a standing army is hollow because you ignore that the Founding Fathers in fact did establish a standing army within five years of ratifying the Constitution. Your argument has all of the truth of "Screaming Mary" and Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s claim that Americans murdered Japanese with atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki without mentioning Pearl Harbor, Wake, the Philippines, Bataan, Guadalcanal, the Aleutians, Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.

Paul’s call to abandon foreign bases ignores contemporary historical lessons: Pearl Harbor among them. And as I mentioned before, the Atlantic and the Pacific are no longer the protective moats they were two hundred years ago. Many theorists believe it’s cheaper in blood and treasure to sustain a U.S. presence in some current, foreign bases rather than suffer to recapture/reestablish them in time of war; this is known as “force projection”. Plus, I pointed out, in another thread about troops in Korea (http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...3&postcount=30), the costs of some, if not most, foreign posts are significantly footed by foreign governments. Hence, posting troops on foreign soil is only negligibly higher (if higher) than posting them on U.S. soil.

However, the only real quibble I have with your post is your assertion that no nation possessed the ability to project force beyond its borders and your diminution of Great Britain’s ability to do so. Great Britain deployed armies to Spain and India to engage French forces and “Citizen Tippoo” in combat during the Napoleonic Wars. Britain transported Wellington’s army to fight Napoleon at Waterloo. And Napoleon invaded Egypt and planned to fortify France’s claim to the Louisiana Territory if he hadn’t lost an army to Toussaint L'Ouverture in Haiti. They had the ability, and they exercised it accordingly.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Fair enough. But my point was that a standing army in the USA, large enough to be a threat internationally (and therefore domestically), could not have been deployed effectively across the Atlantic. Any politician advocating the build-up of a huge army, ostensibly for deployment against Napoleon (for example) would have been run out of office. Our navy couldn't get them there quickly enough or in large enough numbers to do any good. So a build-up of a standing army without a concomitant build-up in naval transport capabilities would have seemed foolish and transparently devious.

And the distances to the places you mention (with the exception of Haiti) from Britain were relatively short compared to the distance from the East coast of the US to Europe. And the journey to India (pre-Suez Canal) wasn't that relevant since Britain had a major permanent presence there, just as we now have troops in hot-spots around the world so don't have to transport all men and materiel from US military bases.

I wasn't trying to diminish Britain's (or any other country's) ability to do anything. It's just that for post-Colonial America to be competitive in any major land-based military campaign across the Atlantic would have been unthinkable IMHO.

Now back to bashing WTF.

Fair enough. But my point was that a standing army in the USA, large enough to be a threat internationally (and therefore domestically), could not have been deployed effectively across the Atlantic. Any politician advocating the build-up of a huge army, ostensibly for deployment against Napoleon (for example) would have been run out of office. Our navy couldn't get them there quickly enough or in large enough numbers to do any good. So a build-up of a standing army without a concomitant build-up in naval transport capabilities would have seemed foolish and transparently devious. Originally Posted by mastermind238

Agreed

I support thinking long-term towards a small constitutional government. The LP is appealing in this respect. But realistically they have zero chance of winning national elections so I support the Tea Party movement which committed to small government but isn't afraid to support the Republican Party as a means to accomplishing that goal.

In American politics it is all about thinking big but willing to accept small wins along the way. Too many in the LP haven't caught on to that idea yet.

Elect 5 more Jim DeMint's in the Senate; and 15 more Louie Gohmert and we are on our way to the principals of small constitutional rule.

Now back to bashing WTF. Originally Posted by mastermind238

Yes , I enjoy the debate.




Let us fast foreword to the present.

Regardless of history, it seems to me that those that want a huge military police force all over the world, refuse to want to pay for it.

How can one justify Wars combined with tax cuts?

How can one not see that as much as the right wants to bash the left over Social Services, the fact of the matter is that those programs in theory are in surplus.

So then the biggest expenditure of the Federal Government is either not paying for itself or our taxes are to low.

Why should the left want to lower their SS payout because the military has run up this huge deficit? Why not just tell the people they can have this huge military presence but taxes will have to increase. Why try and blame the deficit problem on the left?

There has to be some rational middle ground. Your perpetual argument that the Founding Father’s were against a standing army is hollow because you ignore that the Founding Fathers in fact did establish a standing army within five years of ratifying the Constitution.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So they had to lie to get it ratified is basically wtf you are saying.

What I am say is that it only took five years before monied interests took over government.

Now if they would actuall pay for the military then we might not have this huge devide between the right and left. Have your military but for God's sake, pay for it!

Your argument has all of the truth of "Screaming Mary" and Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s claim that Americans murdered Japanese with atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki without mentioning Pearl Harbor, Wake, the Philippines, Bataan, Guadalcanal, the Aleutians, Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Mentioning Pearl Harbor without mentioning prior events is exactly what Wright has done.

So they had to lie to get it ratified is basically wtf you are saying.

What I am say is that it only took five years before monied interests took over government.

Now if they would actuall pay for the military then we might not have this huge devide between the right and left. Have your military but for God's sake, pay for it! Originally Posted by WTF

You keep saying this, but Odumbo -- upon taking office, with the aid of a Dimocrat Congress and without increasing revenue -- immediately expanded social services. Odumbo made no attempt to increase revenue to pay for those before doing so. Odumo's promises to reduce spending are hollow because none of his proposed reductions occur while he is in office. His modus operandi has been nothing more than unadulterated BS.

Mentioning Pearl Harbor without mentioning prior events is exactly what Wright has done. Originally Posted by WTF

Do you wish to debate the merits of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or Indonesia? What about the Panay Incident? That by itself was justification for war in 1937, but FDR diplomatically turned the other cheek. It was Japanese militancy that brought on the Pacific war in WWII, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was merely the proverbial last straw.

Regardless of history, it seems to me that those that want a huge military police force all over the world, refuse to want to pay for it.

Originally Posted by WTF

At the risk of re-igniting the debate over Tea Partiers "selectively" embracing the Constitution, let me give an unofficial Tea Party answer:

Providing for the common defense is an enumerated power for the Federal Government.

Anything that is NOT an enumerated power is supposed to be left to the states.

Many of you lefties here are big on enumerated powers, though you don't always like to admit it. After all, that's the basis of your opposition to ANY state attempt to deal with illegal immigration - establishing a uniform code for immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power, reserved for the Federal government ONLY.

One can argue whether the military is too big or is being misused, but one CANNOT argue that it is an unconstitutional institution. I take that back... In this crowd, I FULLY expect somebody to argue that it's unconstitutional. But serious people don't think so.

So are other programs that compete for Federal dollars, and that are based on non-enumerated powers, e.g., Social Security, unconstitutional? That argument was made and defeated in the 1930s (and perhaps even into the 1940's if I remember correctly). Whether correctly or incorrectly decided by SCOTUS at the time, we are stuck with the precedent of Social Security and all it's hideous siblings - Medicare, etc.

To anyone who DOES NOT believe in selective embrace of the Constitution, it should be a no-brainer that those areas in which the Federal government CLEARLY has a constitutional mandate - defense - should be given funding priority over those areas in which the Federal government DOES NOT have a constitutional mandate - redistributing wealth and income - whether the 1930's SCOTUS saw it that way or not.

If SCOTUS upholds Obamacare, that will be the final nail in the coffin. Enumerated powers will be dead for good, and the Founder's scheme to control the power of the central government will be null and void.

I will end this with a quote from Thomas Jefferson - most leftie's favorite Founding Father, if not President, from his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801:

"... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. That is the sum of good government..."

(emphasis added)

Thomas Jefferson might be horrified by the size of today's military. But the very existence of programs such as Social Security, not to mention Obamacare, would break his heart. If you understand the above quote, you'll understand why.

You keep saying this, but Odumbo -- upon taking office, with the aid of a Dimocrat Congress and without increasing revenue -- immediately expanded social services. Odumbo made no attempt to increase revenue to pay for those before doing so. Odumo's promises to reduce spending are hollow because none of his proposed reductions occur while he is in office. His modus operandi has been nothing more than unadulterated BS.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I think seniors would take exception...he sought to cut back on their services to pay for the expanded services.

What you have failed to address is the fact that SS is not the problem in regards to present taxes. They have run a surplus. The military has spent that surplus.

Now you might want to do away with SS and take that tax money and spend it on Defense. If so, take the question to the people. Let them decide.

I think you and I both know the answer to that question but that is the real question. Current tax rates will not cover current Defense expenses. Take that simple equation to the people.

Do you wish to debate the merits of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or Indonesia? What about the Panay Incident? That by itself was justification for war in 1937, but FDR diplomatically turned the other cheek. It was Japanese militancy that brought on the Pacific war in WWII, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was merely the proverbial last straw. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

My guess is that would lead to a circular debate between Japan's Imperialism of the 1930's vs. American Imperialism right after that up to present day.

At the risk of re-igniting the debate over Tea Partiers "selectively" embracing the Constitution, let me give an unofficial Tea Party answer:

. Originally Posted by mastermind238

That was not the question and Shirley (inside joke with IB) wasn't my point.

The point with the Tea Nuts is that they want things and do not want to pay for them.

This Constitution crap is what COG would call a Strawman!

To cry about the deficit and not want to address the biggest expenditure in the Federal Plate is Looney.

That is why I think the Tea Nuts are full of shit.

You can bash me as you see fit because I damn sure going to bask those retards!