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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
So once again, the facts show that the US was eager for war and liberating foreign people for the US' national aggrandizement.

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.

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.

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.

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

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

I didn't say it invalidated your source, I just pointed out that your source "anti-war.com" is biased, that's all.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Invalid. You present nothing new here. Just the same fallacies.

Yes, I have. Your statements are invalid.

No, it is you who are misrepresenting what I said. I have not used the term conspiracy. Show me where I used that term if you disagree. DO I BELIEVE THERE IS A CONSPIRACY? NO. Have I ever said there's a conspiracy? No. I will not repeat the refutation I've given again, as it was satisfactory. You continue to ignore it because it fully refutes your use of the term "conspiracy."

I have stated my position clearly. You refuse to address my clarification. It's not my fault you can't accept it because it nullifies your argument.

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.


I know.

Which you have misinterpreted.

Appeal to ridicule yet again.


Again, 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. This is because you cannot refute the clarification.

The irrelevant fact is that increasing the size of the army does not supercede his clear words stated before and after his Presidency and before and after the war, that the militia was essential, necessary and "is the firmest bulwark of republics." He did not want the standing army to ever replace the militia - and therefore the increases were never intended for such a purpose, and therefore my argument stands.

Again, I've fully explained when and why I added the extra quotes by Jefferson, WHICH YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS. You ignore my explanation because you cannot refute it, and you continue to cling to a Straw Man.

What comment is false? I agreed that he called for an increase of the army before the war, and also during the war. That however doesn't change the fact that he favored the militia as the primary means of defense of a free state. That is what you cannot prove, because Madison's quotes and actions forbid it. That's why you haven't ONCE addressed his quotes on the militia. He also called for new training for the militia at the same time he called for training for the army. If he wanted to replace the militia with the army, why did he want the new training academies to train them?????? That inconvenient fact puts your argument to rest.

Madison's quotes are Madison's quotes. They're not my opinions.

This is a mischaracterization that you continue to repeat. I guess I'll just have to keep repeating my clarification:

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.

Why can't you address my clarification?

Irrelevant. Since it does not mean he wanted the standing army to replace the militia, it means nothing. The issue here is militia versus standing army. If your claim is that Madison wanted a standing army instead of a militia, it is a claim that has no basis in fact. If he changed his mind and wanted both, his words indicate that he wants the militia as the primary means of defense.

A source may be correct on some points and incorrect on others. That is a fact. If my source is correct on a point, I will point it out. If it is incorrect, I will acknowledge it.

This military source is not correct on the "conquering Canada" objective. First of all, THEY PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM. That's a slight problem. Let's look at the views of multiple historians from 25 separate books and see what evidence they have of this notion:

J.C.A. Stagg, Mr. Madison’s War: "His claim, for example, that Madison coveted Canada to enhance the effectiveness of the restrictive system rests on pretty thin evidence."

"Not Recommended

Julius W. Pratt, Expansionists of 1812 (1925).

Despite its virtues, Pratt’s work cannot be recommended as a book on the causes of the war for two reasons. First, Pratt overstated the American desire to expel the British from North America, claiming that this was “a factor of primary importance in bringing on the war” (p. 12). Secondly, Pratt suggested that northerners and southerners in the U.S. had struck a bargain to seize Canada from Great Britain and the Floridas from Spain. “Thus,” he concluded, “the war began with a double-barrelled scheme of territorial aggrandizement” (p. 13). Pratt rested his case mainly on two contemporary remarks: one by congressional War Hawk Felix Grundy of Tennessee in 1811 proposing such a deal and another by anti-war Federalist Senator William Hunter of Rhode Island in 1813 claiming that such a deal had been agreed to (pp. 140, 149). Pratt’s evidence for this grand bargain is thus very thin indeed. Although it is certainly true that the desire for Canada played an important role in promoting war sentiment in the West, this region was too sparsely settled to drive the war movement. In the more populous East, which produced most of the votes for war, contemporary sources show that maritime issues dominated.

Link

Wikipedia concludes on the War of 1812:
"After long debates historians now agree that Americans did not desire to acquire Canadian lands, but to stop British aid to the hostile Indians." They say that statement could be challenged, but has not been. There is much that could be questioned on the source, but since that was openly marked, and is still unchallenged, that obviously speaks to its veracity.


But you wanted to disqualify Jefferson... Now you want to use him? LOL. You can't have it both ways...

First of all, Jefferson was not in power in government when making this statement and was therefore not actively promoting the policy. Secondly, the quantifier here is EVERYTHING. They wanted to remove the threat of England, who was not respecting their neutrality, not keep the land:

"(In the War of 1812) the US declared war on Great Britain and struck at the only British possession on the continent: Canada."

What facts? Again, the military source was an opinion. They provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. The evidence above shows no one in a real position of power ever making those claims.

Again, Madison was under significant pressure from the war hawks in Congress:

"The Congress that was elected in 1810 and met in November 1811 included a group known as the War Hawks who demanded war against Great Britain. These men were all Democratic-Republicans and mostly from the West and South. Among their leaders were John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee. They argued that American honor could be saved and British policies changed by an invasion of Canada."

Link

I do think he made a mistake in giving in, but he was not a perfect man. He made mistakes, and this was one of them. Nevertheless, he did strive for neutrality, which is something George Bush has never even attempted, so the comparison falls flat:

"Madison and neutrality. Madison was just as committed as Jefferson to staying out of the European war, and he continued to rely on economic pressure. The Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 replaced the Embargo Act. The logic behind the law was that the United States would open its ports to all nations except Britain and France. If either of those two nations stopped violating American neutrality rights, the United States would reestablish commercial ties.

Problems in the west. While Madison and Congress grappled with the neutrality issue, Native Americans renewed their objections to American settlement north of the Ohio River. Tribes were still being coerced into giving away or selling their land. Through the Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809), the Delaware and Miami gave up much of the central and western parts of the new Indiana Territory for only ten thousand dollars.

Voting for war. On June 1, 1812, President Madison sent a war message to Congress. Frustrated at the failure of the neutrality measures and pressured by the War Hawks, Madison felt he had no choice."

That's not spinning - that's what Madison truly wanted. He was pressured into war and made the mistake of giving into the pressure. He was not a perfect man, but he did seek neutrality first. As for the military motives, they were simply seeking to expel the British from Canada.

The British were in a position to immediately send troops in through Canada:

"From the end of the American Revolution in 1783, the United States had been irritated by the failure of the British to withdraw from American territory along the Great Lakes; [and] their backing of the Indians on America's frontiers."

The American plan was to isolate and then capture Quebec City, thereby cutting off any further British troop movement up the St Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes. It was a strategic move. Not a war for true conquest.

Which alliances would be part of - so why can't you address that?

I stand by the information in the article as valid.

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

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

I stand by your presentation of a link from "anti-war.com" to explain what an objective term means, as a very biased action.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread