Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois
Well once again, you call the facts a "straw man", which is just more lies that you tell. You have also contradicted what you said AGAIN.
|
No, I have not. Once again, you refuse to address ANY of my clarifications, because if you do, you know it's over. You continue to classify your misinterpretations as evidence of my lying, which is simply false.
Again,
The vast majority of Founding Fathers, and a majority of the most influential Founding Fathers, supported the militia as the primary means of national defense. This majority allowed for the creation of a standing army for emergency situations, but did not intend for it to replace the militia as the primary means of defense. They believed the United States should remain neutral in foreign wars and should use the militia and army for defensive purposes only. They would not support current U.S. foreign policy.
Quote:
|
First you said that the Founders wanted NO standing army, then you said that they only favor the "possibility of a constant renewal of the standing army" and then later in the same post you say they only "allowed for the creation of a standing army for emergency situations". You have taken three different positions on one issue. Hillary Clinton herself could not have done better than that.
|
Hilary Clinton herself couldn't do a better job at spinning than you've done in this post.
The possibility of a constant renewal would support what?
A standing army under under the renewal clause of the Constitution.
Allowing for its creation for emergency purposes would allow for what?
A standing army under under the renewal clause of the Constitution.
You are portraying these as different viewpoints, when they all support my final conclusions, which you cannot refute:
This majority allowed for the creation of a standing army for emergency situations, but did not intend for it to replace the militia as the primary means of defense. They believed the United States should remain neutral in foreign wars and should use the militia and army for defensive purposes only.
And again, I've never said the Founding Fathers wanted no standing army at any time whatsoever. That is false and completely unconstitutional. I've explained it more than once, and you continue to ignore my clarifications and explanations so that you can continue your "argument" ad nauseum because you cannot accept having lost this debate.