Troll alert

70 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
This is the only thing that I

This is the only thing that I have ever read that you are wrong about Nyarlathotep. The Federalist Papers explain that the intent of not paying for an army was to not have a standing army. The idea was that a volunteer militia could stop the beginning of an invasion until an army was formed and could win the fight. After which there would be no need to continue an army. The reason the Navy and Marine Corps would be fully funded was to protect ocean commerce from raiders.
Federalist No. 26 explains even further.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
That was the purpose of the

That was the purpose of the second amendment as well- "the militia" referee to anyone between 18 and 45 I believe.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Right, but the Federalists

Right, but the Federalists wanted a standing army (though admittedly a small one), the anti-Federalists didn't want it. So they compromised and that is what we got; which clearly does NOT ban a standing army, but instead puts limits on how it must be funded; which Hamilton thought would be enough to keep it small (which in hindsight was not enough).

I'll leave you with Hamilton's words on the matter:

Hamilton - Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain.

Harry Truman's picture
"the mischief of individual

"the mischief of individual federated states…must cease and will some day cease…. National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries." - Adolf Hitler.

Pitar's picture
Seems like there's more

Seems like there's more symbolic McCarthyism at work here than anything else. Let's face it folks, anyone who arrives here to debate atheism is trolling - by unspoken definition - and silencing thereof is no more a defense of a theological bent as it is blatant censorship. T'ain't math, folks, and a transparent attack on a person's political and religious beliefs is, quite overtly, a Democratic Party trait. No need for dragging a thread onto the forum and waxing the poli-sci-hi chest thumping to know at least that much.

The Democratic "party" is precisely that, unto itself, and hardly worthy of the stature the title implies. Also, the above (member implied) description of the conservative party more closely matches that of the liberal regime's courting of corporations (traditionally) than any conservative conduct we've witnessed to-date. Even Hilary herself was banking (quite literally) on the corporate palm greasing of the top office while she simultaneously trashed her own chances to win it with mouthfuls of double-speak as she both lauded and pitied her own constituency. Damn she was/is stupid (thank you Electorate).

Dumber people could not be imagined than liberal politicians, and with such a transparency that the Electorate (hardly synonymous with "common" people) simply could no longer sustain it in American public office without embarrassing itself and the American people. It's one thing to look away for a period of time if the political landscape can wax respectable, and a whole other thing to have to make a change for the lesser evil. In the case of Trump, can we really believe he's the lesser evil than the incumbent party prior to such a telling change? The Electorate could see no more damage done by him than the incumbency was set to woefully perpetuate on the American landscape at home and abroad.

It's a chilling lesson but one that has been doled out for whatever educational value it can possibly provide as Trump demonstrates just how stupid party politics trashed itself to be, in spite of the job of representing the American people which it no longer did and continues to suffer with our good buddy Trump.

So, bandy all you want about petty party politicking, with banners of loyalty placed where you'll place them, the American 2-party system fell like a house of cards because it was not being properly maintained. As it came down anyone capable of witnessing it just needed to say the right words - Make America Strong Again - and it worked. The tragedy is the entire political 2-party system of the time not only precipitated its own demise, it couldn't even see it slowly crashing down around itself.

Pathetic small minded people in high places have never exemplified failure at the highest level as American politics has, generally speaking. Not talking about pet programs. Talking about a healthy landscape that did not have to suffer the economic trashing of an entire nation to banking fraud and greed, and then avoid proper prosecution thereof as it enjoyed the shielding by a political system fraught with the same avarice. But, Trump is painting a rather fine syllabus for future damage avoidance and containment just by his own poor example. Unfortunately, none of that was perceivable by his unseeing predecessors so the Electorate took responsibility away from them and gave it to the the nearest man who did see it. At least he's that smart, which the whole of the system before him, his "Swamp", wasn't (in deeds).

GarfeildRepublican's picture
Well said

Well said

mykcob4's picture
Not well said at all.

Not well said at all. Completely inaccurate.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
I think it was very well said

I think it was very well said.

mykcob4's picture
I utterly and completely

I utterly and completely disagree Pitar.
". T'ain't math, folks, and a transparent attack on a person's political and religious beliefs is, quite overtly, a Democratic Party trait." Absolute BULLSHIT! It is implicitly NOT a "trait" of the Democratic Party.
I won't state all things that Democratic Party stands for, but it isn't the cynical characterization that you allege.You are WRONG about "matches that of the liberal regime's courting of corporations ".
Sure Democratic politicians court donations from sympathetic corporate donors, but those donors don't expect special favors. Warren Buffet doesn't expect special favors, he just agrees with the platform. That is far different than the conservaturds which dole out charity, tax breaks, special legislation, and government contracts to conservative political donors.
I won't go on about the rest of your little troll piece denigrating Liberalism, only to say you are so wrong and so far from the truth and facts that it isn't even funny.
Go back to posting BORING FUCKING POEMS that make no sense anyway.
I have set you straight before because you commented on combat and were dead wrong about that as well.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.