Truth-Bringer

Again, an Appeal to Ridicule and an argument ad nauseum. You keep repeating the same fallacies over and over again. You introduced the word "conspiracy" which has a negative connotation on internet forums. This is why conspiracy boards are separated and marginalized from the rest of the forum. I've stated there is a potential conflict of interest. You continue to ignore this. There is always a potential conflict of interest when a source funded buy a particular entity makes an argument in favor of that entity. HOWEVER, to show that this did not in and of itself disqualify the source, and to more importantly show that this was not relied on in my argument, I went on to specifically explain why their conclusions were invalid. Most of which you continue to ignore.

Again, you continue to ignore that I've never stated this disqualified a source. I addressed all the specifics of your sources. I did not disqualify them on the basis of the potential conflict of interest, I merely commented on it.

If you accept your above reasoning though, please realize this destroys your own argument as it disqualifies all your sources. Whoops...

Also, the fact that those sources may have received funds doesn't disqualify them. Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT USING THEM TO UPHOLD AN ARGUMENT FOR MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND MORE POWER. Therefore, there's no conflict of interest.


No, I have not changed my argument. I don't like to spend a whole lot of time typing up new material all the time. When someone says "Hey, I made a wording/typing mistake - you're misinterpreting it - here's a clarification" it's invalid to ignore this and to continue clinging to the mistake.

Again, this is a misinterpretation. I have since clarified to prevent further misinterpretation. You cannot accept this, because the clarification ends your argument.

No, I am not saying that. I have since clarified to prevent misinterpretation.

What I will acknowledge is that the way I worded it left it open to a negative interpretation, which is why I revised it. You won't accept the revision and cling to a typing/wording error on my part because you don't have an argument.

What you want to do is ignore the possibility for people to make typing/wording/grammatical mistakes and attack their mistakes rather than the actual argument at hand.

You cannot make irrelevant facts "valid." Again, Madison had every right to increase the size of the army during a time of war. Madison stated that the militia was essential and greatly praised their efforts during the war. He wanted the militia to continue as the primary means of defense of the country. Having a larger army does not invalidate his words and praise of the militia.

Again, this is simply false and anyone else can easily look back in this thread to see this. I never said I didn't cite Jefferson. I explained that when I cited Jefferson multiple times on the one post, it was done merely to show his solidarity with Madison, not as a foundation of my argument. Regardless, Jefferson was a prominent Founding Father, a two term President, and the author of the Declaration of Independence.

Madison on Jefferson from his first Inaugural address:

"Of those of my immediate predecessor it might least become me here to speak. I may, however, be pardoned for not suppressing the sympathy with which my heart is full in the rich reward he enjoys in the benedictions of a beloved country, gratefully bestowed or exalted talents zealously devoted through a long career to the advancement of its highest interest and happiness."

Well he also called for it during wartime. But that doesn't change the fact that he also praised the militia before and after wartime, after he had called for an increase in the size of the army.

However, after he said that, he said the following:

From Madison's first Inaugural address:

"to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics-that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;"

That's checkmate on that issue.

"Expansion" is the word used by the source. Show me Madison using the term "Expansion."

Again, you're ignoring my other sources:

"Madison was President for the Second War of Independence, more commonly known as the War of 1812. Madison had little enthusiasm for the war, but his hand was forced by the "War Hawks" in his own party."


From Madison's first inaugural address:

"Under the benign influence of our republican institutions, and the maintenance of peace with all nations whilst so many of them were engaged in bloody and wasteful wars, the fruits of a just policy were enjoyed in an unrivaled growth of our faculties and resources. Proofs of this were seen in the improvements of agriculture, in the successful enterprises of commerce, in the progress of manufacturers and useful arts, in the increase of the public revenue and the use made of it in reducing the public debt, and in the valuable works and establishments everywhere multiplying over the face of our land."

Also:

"It is a precious reflection that the transition from this prosperous condition of our country to the scene which has for some time been distressing us is not chargeable on any unwarrantable views, nor, as I trust, on any involuntary errors in the public councils. Indulging no passions which trespass on the rights or the repose of other nations, it has been the true glory of the United States to cultivate peace by observing justice, and to entitle themselves to the respect of the nations at war by fulfilling their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality. It there be candor in the world, the truth of these assertions will not be questioned; posterity at least will do justice to them."

"To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness;"


Invasion certainly can be defensive, if a state of war already exists, initiated by another force. Again, the British were invading and attacking from Canada:

Madison was not attacking Canada simply for the sake of attacking Canada. This was during the war of 1812. The British were attacking the U.S. from Canada:

"That same year, disaster loomed as 10,000 experienced British troops under command of Sir George Prevost marched from Montreal along Lake Champlain and down the Hudson Valley toward New York City with the intention of cutting the country in two. The British had attempted the same strategy in the Revolutionary War with an army of 9,500 marching south under General John Burgoyne: the Hudson Valley invited this strategy. However, on September 11, 1814, an American fleet commanded by Captain Thomas Macdonough destroyed the British fleet on Lake Champlain. The British army, with its lines of communication and supply jeopardized, fought poorly and retreated into Canada."

Link


Totally false. Tell me about the United States position on foreign alliances under Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.