That's a false and misleading statement. First, only two other people have posted on this thread besides you and I, and one of them is banned. Secondly, the other guy said that he agreed that the Founders were split over the standing army (which contradicts what you said). He goes on to talk about an argument that I had not yet fully addressed about the Founders foreign policy, which I had not addressed as much until after he posted (by talking about the War of 1812). So you don't get much help from the crowd either.

__________________
"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

Just wanted to point out a few things here. Firstly, I've already shown quotes from Madison, Washington, Hamilton and two other delegates to the Constitutional Convention who advocated that the US have a standing army. I've also shown how Thomas Jefferson spoke favorably of the US going as far as the furthest northeastern reaches of Canada to drive the British out. I've read quotes from Henry Clay who singlehandedly lead the war effort of 1812, where Clay talked about annexing Canada and seizing the profits from their fur trade and that Madison signed on to this war and sent army and militia to fight in Canada.

All of this shows that the Founders were not averse to using military force beyond just territorial defense.

Lastly, I want to show how the Founders MAINTAINED AN ARMY even AFTER the Revolutionary War. That should show once and for all how the Founders felt about keeping a standing army. If you have a look at this site you can easily see that the Founders maintained an army from the end of the Revolutionary war in 1783 till the War of 1812. So the founders maintained a standing army, period. Now one could argue that because the US was using the army to fight Native Americans, that these are all "emergency" situations. First of all, that would have to mean that stealing other people's lands counts as an "emergency situation" or one would have to argue that stealing Native Americans lands, doesn't really count as stealing and that whole of the US did by nature and the grace of God belong to the United States and we have a mandate on the land and thus you can't really steal what actually belongs to you by the grace of God. I leave "Truth-Bringer" to make such an argument.

However, even if he were to make such an argument that taking Native Americans lands does not count as war or aggression, and that the Native Americans were causing an "emergency" by attacking us for taking their lands, even then there is still proof that the Founders wanted a standing army. Even if you accepted such an argument.

We can see that because the British did not evacuate the forts they said the would evacuate in Northern New York and in present-day Michigan.



The British said they would leave and what did the Congress decide to do after the British left? Put an army in those forts. They didn't say, let's send some colonists out there and arm them and they can defend the lands. They didn't say de-construct the forts and we'll rely on the good word of the British that they will not return. No, they raised an army that would man those forts once the British were gone.

So the Founders believed in raising an army to man their forts along the border with the British Empire.

So in reality, the Founders (before the War of 1812) believed in raising an army to guard their borders from the British and to kick the Native Americans off of their lands and to facilitate the settlers to continue taking Native American land.

__________________
"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

Based upon what I've seen, I would say that for the War of 1812, the Founders felt that Canada was oppressed and they probably felt the same way about Canada as Rumsfeld felt about Iraq, that we would be greeted as liberators and that it would be an easy war. They were wrong, just as we were wrong in making those assumptions in 2003. Taking Canada was not the primary reason for the invasion though. It was probably a secondary reason. The primary reason was to stop the British and Canadians from giving weapons to the Native Americans, which the NA's were using to kill thousands of settlers.

__________________
"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

A repetition of the same Straw Man. The allowed for the possibility of a constant renewal of the standing army, but this was never intended as the primary means of defense.

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.

No, it's not. It's a false and misleading statement to portray that as a false and misleading statement.

If someone who states 2 + 2 = 4 were to be banned from an internet forum, would that mean he or she was wrong? A violation of a forum rule doesn't invalidate an argument.

So he agrees with neither of us. Note that I never claimed he agreed with me. I stated that the people who posted in here did not agree with you. Again - no one else who has posted in this thread has agreed with you.

I got more help from the crowd in this thread than you did, and that's my only point. I invite other members to come in here and read all these posts and just see which statements are true and correct, and which statements are misleading and false.

Based upon your opinion? That's not proof of anything. If you've seen some evidence, please produce and present it.


Please produce and present evidence to support this claim.

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. This time in the same post.

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.

__________________
"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

No, most of your comments here are false and misleading. You've shown this by omitting facts, spinning and cherry picking what facts you do use, while disregarding your own sources and the words and actions of the Founders which contradict your opinions. You even make misleading statements about what posters on this thread write.

You got support from one banned poster. I view that as irrelevant, you view it as relevant, which is no different than the normal cherry-picking that you've done.

He disagreed with you on an argument where you developed your argument and I developed mine. He disagreed with me on an argument that you developed but that I did not develop until after he posted. So essentially, he disagreed with you on the issue where he was most qualified to disagree.

You got help from a banned poster, and your opinions were rejected by a current member. You made misleading comments about this, which is typical of the comments you made throughout this thread.

__________________
"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

No, you're lying again. I said based upon what I've seen. I've seen lots of evidence which I presented and which you completely avoided.

When you correct your statement about "opinion" from its current form as a lie to an honest one reflecting what I actually said, then I will consider your request.

__________________
"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

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.

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.