No, you're simply describing them as false and misleading. You're misinterpreting and mischaracterizing my statements.


Again, does a violation of the rules policy on a forum affect validity of the arguments on a political subject made by the poster? If a poster says 2+2=4 and later gets banned, does that invalidate his assertion that 2+2=4?


LOL. This is a complete mischaracterization.

In post 38 You said:

Then in post 39 he said:

This shows he disagrees with your position. Then he goes on to say:

His statement "I suppose the point is moot anyhow because the founding fathers were very limited in what they could know" does nothing to refute my argument because it is a form of Appeal to Novelty fallacy and is also close to Chronological snobbery.

I haven't seen any evidence you've presented to prove that "the Founders felt that Canada was oppressed" and "that [the U.S.] would be greeted as liberators."


I didn't make a statement. That is a clear mischaracterization. Look at it again. IT WAS A QUESTION.

So you have presented evidence but yet you won't do this because I asked if it was an opinion and wanted to see evidence? Talk about introducing unnecessary complexity...

If you've got the evidence, then produce and present it.

Dick Cheney. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Cheney has helped shape President Bush's approach to the war on terrorism

__________________
“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
—Matthew 6:21

Yes, you do. You ignore the quotes of the Founders and the Founders themselves because they didn't believe what you say, and you also ignore the actual history of their recorded deeds because that also disproves your opinions.

It IS already over. It's not that things WOULD be over. They already ARE over. The founders favored a standing army which contradicts your first position and they also favored a permanent standing army which contradicts your second position. The fact that they said as much and actually maintained that army does mean that this "debate" is over. Your revisionist history is incorrect.

I already refuted your position, and then your position after you changed it. The founders supported a permanent standing army, which is why they established one after the Revolutionary War is over.

You said the Founding Fathers wanted no standing army. You in Post 13:

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

Your opinions are ignoring facts and denial ad nauseum.

__________________
"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 don't. You're simply repeating the same mischaracterizations.

It is. You don't have any arguments. Only mischaracterizations.

No, you didn't.

Yet another mischaracterization. Already explained long ago. You won't dare address my clarification though.

No, your comments are false and misleading as I've laid out in detail. Like when you tried to make it seem that a bunch of people supported you on this thread, when in fact only one member of this forum commented, and he agreed with my comments about how the Founders wanted a standing army. He said that I had not made the case for the Founders "war mongering", which I went on to do after he posted. So you made a misleading comment there.


No, but most often (to use your analogy) banned people argue 2+2=5. So you attempt to draw credibility from someone with such a reputation.

No, you misrepresent the poster whom you are drawing support from. His argument is not an appeal to novelty fallacy. He's not arguing that our policies are superior to the Founder's policies because they're new. He implies that they are superior because of what the Founders "were limited in what they could know." The correct interpretation of his remarks were sitting there right in front of you, in plain and simple English and you chose to distort them anyway. Typical of most of what you posted on this thread.


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

You simply continue to ignore the quotes of the Founders, the Founders themselves, your own sources and people on this forum (when they contradict your opinion) and history, which has been laid in front of you. You have misrepresented and treated with great bias, every subject you touched here.

You lie twice here. You said the Founders wanted no standing army in post 13. Also, I did address your second position (on the same issue) in great detail in post 72.

__________________
"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

The Jefferson quote was one indicator (which you saw). There are others as well.

OK, the phrasing of your question was dishonest.

I don't consider honesty an "unnecessary complexity" which is something that you don't seem to agree with. If you would like to see more evidence, then correct your lie where you requested it.

__________________
"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 haven't.

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.

As someone studying history, I have to agree with this. Note that during the war of 1812, EVERY MAJOR BATTLE was fought by militia. The Battle of New Orleans in particular, where we had pirates, frontiersmen, farmers, city gentlemen, FRENCHMEN, and countless other groups of people all turn out to defend the city.

This war took place with the ideals of the founding fathers fresh in everyone's heads, and still with national pride resultant of the Revolution strong in everyone's minds. If the government were to supply for any major standing force, it would only be the navy, as was outlined in the Naval Act of 1794, and this was only because of the high cost required to build ships of war.

Even in the Civil War, the wide majority of the soldiers on the Union side were volunteer militia.

Our founding fathers saw the standing army as the tool of tyranny. If an army was constantly maintained and controled by the government, it posed a threat to liberty, and also would lead to the nation getting involved in foreign conflict in which we had no place. They thusly relied on militia forces to defend the nation because the militia would only assemble when their homes or liberty were threatened.

The founding fathers would be appalled by the Iraq conflict because it is not America's place to police the world. We should take care of our own people and let the rest of the world do the same. If the people of another country are oppressed, they should rise up and revolt like we did.

__________________
Proud Libertarian. www.lp.org
Wayne Allyn Root for President 2008!
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
-Plato