Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
Your opinions are hypocritical. You attempt to have the best of both worlds: arguing in favor of Paulist conspiracy theories while trying to avoid the recognition that you believe in these conspiracy theories. You suggest that the National Endowment of Arts and the US Army Center of Military History are lying because they are government-owned. Yet at the same time, you use university professors as sources who draw their funding from billions of dollars of federal funds as well. So your support of conspiracy theories and inconsistent use of them has as much credibility as the rest of your opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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.
|
You've disqualified nothing. You've only ignored some of the major events of US history (i.e. the US attempt to conquer Canada in 1812) and ignoring sections of the Federalist Papers, which forms the basis of the Founders thinking for the US Constitution.
Also, as it appears that you are misrepresenting what I said, allow to repeat myself. I am talking about YOUR conspiracy theory. I don't believe in this Illuminati, big government conspiracy theory stuff you're talking about. So the fact that I describe your conspiracy theory, does not make me a believer of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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.
|
You've said that the founders opposed a standing army, and I've shown that to be false. You still seem to be switching your positions, saying that this was not their intent and that it was. It's not my fault that you fail to state your position clearly and then stick with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Again, this is a misinterpretation. I have since clarified to prevent further misinterpretation. You cannot accept this, because the clarification ends your argument.
|
I don't have an argument. I have the facts, you have an ignoring of the facts, which you justify with conspiracy theories of the boogie man government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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.
|
Not at all, I will gladly acknowledge that you failed to say what you mean and then stand your ground on what you say. All you needed to do was admit that, which you didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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.
|
Well I guess I'd have to say that your opinions are just ridiculous since you're saying that the "Father of the Constitutions" beliefs that he issued in the Federalist Papers are "irrelevant facts" and that the increase of the size of the US Army by 250% under his Presidency are also "irrelevant facts." Apparently, you assert that history and the facts are irrelevant to your revisionist history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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.
|
People are free to look back and see you quote Jefferson approximately 10 times. I describe that as you heavily using Jefferson, but I understand that you won't admit this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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.
|
I've already pointed out to you that your comment here is false. Madison called on increasing the size of the US Army by 250% 2 years BEFORE the war, not during the war. You continue to repeat the above falsehood though, without regard for the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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. |
Checkmate on your opinions. I went further than what you said here, I showed that the Founders wanted the standing army (which you said they didn't) and that they wanted it kept at no more than 1% of the population, which we have done. 1% of the US population is 3 million people. Our active duty army is only slightly more than 1/2 a million. We've kept "within the requisite limits a standing military force" as Madison said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
"Expansion" is the word used by the source. Show me Madison using the term "Expansion."
|
Yes, I know. You used your source where it was favorable to your opinion and turn your back on your own source once it contradicts it. So OK, we have the source you provided saying that the US was trying to conquer Canada. We also have your friend, Thomas Jefferson also saying something that sounds very similar to every President's comments about liberating other countries:
The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent.
~1812.
source
We also have the US army military historians confirming that the US was trying to conquer Canada:
NAMED CAMPAIGNS - WAR OF 1812
Quote:
|
Canada, 18 June 1812 - 17 February 1815. This campaign includes all operations in the Canadian-American border region except the battle of Chippewa and Lundy's Lane. The invasion and conquest of Canada was a major objective of the United States in the War of 1812. Among the significant causes of the war were the continuing clash of British and American interests in the Northwest Territory and the desire of frontier expansionists to seize Canada while Great Britain was preoccupied with the Napoleonic Wars.
|
So once again, the facts show that the US was eager for war and
liberating foreign people for the US' national aggrandizement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
|
No, you do a good enough job ignoring your own sources for the both of us. So OK, now you're saying that the Founder of the Constitution has about as much leadership and competence as George W. Bush. So now Madison is not even responsible for a war that he pushed for and he's not responsible for the war objectives either. OK, that's fairly laughable and contradicts your reverence for the Founders, but as you wish.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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;"
|
Madison certainly talked a good game, as most politicians do. Maybe Madison thought that he was trying to liberate Canada, just as Bush and Rumsfeld felt that they were trying to liberate Iraq. In either case, this spinning you've shown only shows that they played the same games back then that they do now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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 |
A fine argument, if you ignore that we invaded Canada a full two years before this invasion into the Hudson Valley by the British. It's also interesting how one would militarily justify an invasion of Canada as "defense" when the British were invading us, capturing Detroit, sacking our capital in Washington, burning it to the ground, invading Louisiana, and sacking parts of Maine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Totally false. Tell me about the United States position on foreign alliances under Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
|
No, that would be everything that you've just said. We're not talking mainly about the US position on foreign alliances, but US foreign policy as a whole, including war mongering, and if you look at how the Father of the Constitution sponsored a failed invasion of Canada, you can see that things of today are not as radical a departure from the past as you've said they are.
WEB