Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Obviously, your "argument" is merely repeating "invalid" and copy-pasting from some list of logical fallacies actually in the hope that this makes what you say true. It does not. It's just sophistry.

Your opinions are based off of the selective ignoring of facts, Ronulan conspiracy theories and revisionist history.

No, you are suggesting that all government sources (which contradict what you say) are lying, so this is the same old conspiracy theory BS we've come to expect and see from the sort of politics you are advocating.

I refuse to accept your lies. You initially said that the Founders did not want a standing army. If you want to admit that you are wrong about that, that's fine, but don't pretend like you never said it, when we've seen you say that on post 13 America's Founding Fathers on War - They Weren't Neocon Warmongers

"Proof that the Founders did indeed want a national militia composed of the people and not standing armies:"

You explicitly said that the Founders did not want standing armies. Just admit that you were wrong.

I'm glad you know that I don't have an argument. I have the historical facts, something which you ignore, when it suits the maintenance of your conspiracy theories and opinions. It's sad how your opinions are getting beat up by a guy with no argument and only the facts.

Your posts on this thread are an appeal to ridicule, since they appeal for conspiracy theories, historical revisionism and outright bias.

You stated something that you do not believe. Now you want to blame me for taking what you said seriously. Obviously, your words have no value. Your opinions are a losing proposition either way, since your opinions are at odds with the facts, no matter which different one you feel like arguing today.

Obviously, you have made an argument that departs from logic and common sense. You say that Madison's actual actions of increasing the size of the army in times of peace, is "irrelevant" to his beliefs about the army. That's silly enough, but you also ignore your own words once again, because you have said Madison's words before the war are important, and in the Federalist Papers Madison called for a national army. Your opinions are thus wrong either way you look at it.

You quote Jefferson and then you downplay your quoting of Jefferson. That's your argument. What's to address? I think it's pathetic how you quote Jefferson and then downplay your quoting of him. I thought that was pretty obvious, but I guess now you know that I have explicitly addressed your failure to take responsibility for your own words.

The comment that is false is when you said he called for an increase in troops during wartime. He called for the increases two years before the war. You contradict yourself again here, or perhaps you simply fail to articulate your beliefs. You said I have no argument, now you say that your evasions "puts your argument to rest." Again, a failure to be consistent with your own words.

You disregard Madison's quotes when it is convenient for supporting your opinions. You disregarded him when he called for a standing army, you disregarded Washington and two other less famous founders when they called for a standing army. You degrade one of the most influential founders (Hamilton) when he calls for a standing army. Your pretense at representing what the Founders believed in is a sham.

You lie again. You said:

America's Founding Fathers on War - They Weren't Neocon Warmongers

"Proof that the Founders did indeed want a national militia composed of the people and not standing armies:"

You said the Founders did wanted a national militia and NOT standing armies. If you're going to contradict what you say, I will continue to point out those lies.

Once again, this is a purely hypocritical thing to say. You quote Madison and imply that we are not following what Madison said about keeping "within the requisite limits a standing military force" and then when I statistically show that we are, you try to change the subject. It's just amazing how your opinions fail even when they are taken at face value.

That's a great line. You're basically saying: A source is correct when it confirms when I say, and wrong when it disproves what I say. So that's all dialogue with you really is then, just you shoving your opinion regardless of the facts while pretending to be based on the facts. Everything you've said here is a sham.

The dishonesty of this statement is stunning. Firstly, those 25 authors are not in agreement on anything. The site that you list is a brief book review of 25 different books on the War of 1812. It's not a site that says, here's 25 authors who think that the US was not trying to conquer Canada, even though Jefferson referred to Canadian "acquisition". That's how you make it out to be, that's not what it actually is. Secondly, you make a lame attempt to refute an argument that I never even made, showing one author who says that Madison did not invade Canada to re-enforce the "restrictive system." However, anyone who even bothered to look up what that term means, would see that that is talking about economic sanctions on the UK, and nowhere do I talk about that. So this refutes nothing.

OK so if you actually use your entire source (without omitting the parts that contradict your opinions) then it says that the territorial acquisition of Canada was a secondary objective in the War of 1812. That still proves my point and disproves yours. Regardless of whether it's a primary or secondary objective YOUR SOURCE said the US had a territorial "desire for Canada". The Founder of the Constitution acted upon that desire in a "war mongering way", invading Canada, which is the opposite of what you said (that the founders were not war mongerers).

Wow that's so pathetic. You criticize my use of sources and then you use Wikipedia, which anybody can change? More hypocrisy.

Aside from that, you also drink up a Wikipedia comment that has NO CITATION!!!! Again proving that your opinions are built upon the biased admission of faulty statements and the unobjective rejection of facts.

I do disqualify Jefferson as a person who was not a Founder of the Constitution, which is what Paulists are supposed to believe in. I'm showing how Jefferson disproves you even when you try to use him.

It's interesting that in arguing against neo-con warmongering, you make the same arguments that they do. Attacking Iraq, I mean Canada for US defense. You prove my point of how little has changed.

That's the double standard you use again. Your sources (not including the one you only use when it backs up what you say) don't show any evidence either. You presented your source as proof when it agreed with you, but now where it doesn't agree with you, you say that it is "incorrect." You also dismiss someone you quoted almost ten times in this thread (Jefferson) when he talks about how the US will take "acquisition" over Canada and drive the British out of North America. Just more bias in formulating your opinion.

The real damage you do to your own arguments is that your presumably hold up the Founders as people whose words we must follow, but right here you're pretty much saying that Madison was such a pussy, that he disagreed with his cabinet but he just did what they said anyway. So once again, you've contradicted your own argument. You espouse us listening to the Founders wisdom while implicitly calling them pussies (Madison) or completely invalid (Hamilton). Congratulations on demolishing two of the most important founders in US history.

So then you would say that the Father of the Constitution was opposed to war mongering but was too weak himself to do anything but give in to the war mongerers of his age?

OK, well Bush was simply seeking to expel Saddam from Iraq. Clinton was simply seeking to expel the Serbian army from Kosovo. Reagan was simply seeking to expel communism from countries the Russians were pushing it. No difference I guess.

That is what your source says (who is by profession a designer of stamps for the Canadian government). However, this is not necessarily true.

Military History Online - A Military History of the War of 1812
This author cites a published work as the basis for his claims: [3]. Carl Benn, The War of 1812 (New York: Osprey Publishing, 2002), 16-19, 26.

Since you fail to take responsibility of your own words, as well as the myriad of other biased and laughable remarks you have made you are in no position to tell other people what they can't do. You had best try to address those failures before trying to change the subject.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.