• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I dont agree with the Supreme Court, but they have a point...

Stop hating on the NG.
I'm so sorry that me not simply accepting the "The National Guard soldiers are all fully trained riot control personnel" fairy tale distresses you. However the fact is that the National Guard soldiers are NOT all fully trained riot control personnel.
They do a difficult job and deserve some respect.
Indeed they do. They just don't deserve "respect" for being trained for something that they aren't trained for.
If you cannot say anything nice, just do not say anything.
Thus dies the truth.
 
In the British Army, the soldiers in ceremonial units are real, combat trained soldiers - albeit not on horseback.
True, but that does not make the ceremonial unit a "combat unit" - does it?

I mean the US Navy Band is made up of personnel who have all received, and completed, navy basic training, but you sure wouldn't expect them to crew an aircraft carrier - would you?
 
The US is tied for 30th best in the "Freedom of Speech" sweepstakes. Germany ranks 18th and the People's Democratic Socialist Monarchy of Canada comes in at a rather putrid 10th.
 
I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?
I don't think the Constitution was intended as a check list or recipe. The DOI does mention "certain inalienable rights include Life" Given these rights come from a "Creator" a debate could be had about when the life begins.
What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.
I agree.
Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.
I'm in favor or abortion for rate, incest, non-viably, health of the mother as a BASIS; other exceptions as decided by democratic process within the state.
 
Reactions: PoS
Says you.

The NG members who are MPs ARE TRAINED IN RIOT CONTROL.

Indeed they do. They just don't deserve "respect" for being trained for something that they aren't trained for.

Thus dies the truth.

The truth hasn't died yet.
 
This is only Basic Training, not the entire training syllabus. They train monthly and on an ad hoc basis. Maybe have also served extended time on active duty.
 
Says you.

The NG members who are MPs ARE TRAINED IN RIOT CONTROL.
The statement that I was disputing was (in effect) "The National Guard soldiers are ALL fully trained riot control personnel"
The truth hasn't died yet.
If you insist that the only approved course of action is to "honour" people for things that they do NOT do or for being things that they are NOT, then "Thus dies (v.tr.) truth." is correct.
 
This is only Basic Training, not the entire training syllabus.
NOVEMBER SIERRA SIERRA
They train monthly
Yep one weekend per month (thus a 14 day course takes up seven full months of training time) and two weeks during the summer (thus a 14 day course takes up 100% of their summer training time.
and on an ad hoc basis.
That phrase doesn't actually mean what you think it means.
Maybe have also served extended time on active duty.
Maybe an individual member of the National Guard did. That, however, does not mean that ALL the members of the National Guard are fully, and currently, trained in "riot control" as was claimed.
 
True, but that does not make the ceremonial unit a "combat unit" - does it?

No, nevertheless you couldn't consider such a unit as not cavalry.

I mean the US Navy Band is made up of personnel who have all received, and completed, navy basic training, but you sure wouldn't expect them to crew an aircraft carrier - would you?

In the 19th century, the regimental band of British army regiments, would act as medics in time of war.

If Britain ever went to war, the Household cavalry mounted squadron would join their regiments to fight, but not the bandsmen. These days military bandsmen (in the British army) are more or less full time musicians and it's my understanding that they're the only servicemen who can join a union.
 
Don't forget the 13th Amendment and the prohibition of "...involuntary servitude..."
 
No, nevertheless you couldn't consider such a unit as not cavalry.
I wouldn't consider such a ceremonial unit as anything other than "PR Puffery" REGARDLESS of which unit they were reenacting.
In the 19th century, the regimental band of British army regiments, would act as medics in time of war.
And into the 20th as well.
Queen’s Regulations officially permits military personnel to join civilian trade unions and professional associations, that enhance their trade skills and knowledge; but the UK’s trade union legislation specifically excludes armed forces personnel from collective labour relations2. This prevents the statutory creation of an association to represent and promote the interests of the UK’s armed forces, making the UK out-of-step with many of our closest allies. The militaries of Germany, Norway, the USA, Belgium, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Ireland all benefit from armed forces representative bodies.
[SOURCE]
 
Don't forget the 13th Amendment and the prohibition of "...involuntary servitude..."
Since the pregnant woman is not required to stay with, or even have any contact with, the person who got her pregnant, the pregnant woman is NOT in any sort of "servitude" (voluntary or not). That means that the 13th Amendment simply doesn't apply with respect to the person who got the woman pregnant.

HOWEVER, the pregnant woman IS being forced to provide services to the fetus and thus the pregnant woman IS in a state of "involuntary servitude" with respect to the fetus. That means that, upon a woman complaining about being held in a state of "involuntary servitude" the state has a constitutional obligation to take all steps to terminate that condition of "involuntary servitude" as rapidly as possible. If the state refuses to take the fetus into custody and terminate it's forced imposition of a state of "involuntary servitude" on the woman, then the state (and the directing minds thereof) are "aiding and abetting the imposition of a state of involuntary servitude in conditions not specifically authorized by the constitution of the United States of America".
 
They also protect the Vice President. On Jan 6th 2021 this was Mike Pence and he was in the Capitol that day - indeed he appears to have been a prime target of the mob, many of whom were heard shouting "Hang Mike Pence"
You are still quite confused. Where have I suggested that the SS do not protect the VP? Ofcourse they were at the Captol. The go wherever the VP goes.
So yes there WERE armed Secret Service personnel in the Capitol, guarding the then VP and the senators/congressmen.
Once again it's a matter of responsibilities. The SS were not there to protect congress critters. They were there to protect the VP. The Capitol Police protected the congress critters.
 
You made the accusation of being "confused" over the role of the Secret Service. You denied that they also protect the Vice President.
I made the accusation that you are confused. I made no statement putting any doubt on the role of the Secret Service protecting the Vice President and I certainly did not deny they have that role. If you are truly that confused, I am wasting my time with you.
 
I wouldn't consider such a ceremonial unit as anything other than "PR Puffery" REGARDLESS of which unit they were reenacting.

But members of the British Army Household Cavalry Regiment are anything but re-enactors - they are professional soldiers.
 

Confused about what ?
 
I didn't consider the father as a part of my position. Your description of the underlying issues makes a lot of sense.
 
And yet NG units have been called for decades to perform crowd control and to assist LE units. Why do you think they fall under state government unless called up by the President?
 
Lots of things are not mentioned in the constitution but as society changes we still need cohesive rules and regulations.
 
I mean Congress can just pass a law about it and that would be the end of it.

Congress won't because they need us fighting each other.
 
I mean Congress can just pass a law about it and that would be the end of it.

Congress won't because they need us fighting each other.

Congress won't because the HoR is Republican controlled.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…