Rand Paul on Mitt Romney

WTF, your delusions are getting worse. Some call 911 before he harms himself!

Constitution , History and Standing Armies. Read it and weap never and mastermind. COG got enough sense not to put this dick in his mouth! Our Foundinf Fathers were not for this huge military industrial complex. Originally Posted by WTF

Once again, a non-responsive response. And by your standard I should be calling you a God Damned Liar. But I won't.

I'll only point out that I said "Not all Founders were solidly against foreign entanglements." If you like, I'm sure I can track down documentation to support the well-known fact that some Founders were in favor of interceding against England on behalf of France.

If you'd only READ what we write instead of IMAGINING it, you'd save us all a lot of trouble. Believe it or not, we don't all hang around waiting breathlessly for your next pronouncement.

And speaking of holding my breath ... where's your reply to my comments yesterday in another thread about photo ID vs disenfranchisement?

WTF, your delusions are getting worse. Some call 911 before he harms himself!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If you lick my dirty ass with your tongue, it ain't go'n be me that needs to call 911

dear WTF

you, once again, have missed the point, misconstrued (or are misconstruing) what i said, have posted something that makes no point nor addresses one thing that was in contention.

you have constructed a straw man (an attempt at face saving, perhaps, as changing the focus is your best weapon at this point) and now you proceed to flail away, cane in hand, against its woven buttocks.

what was in contention was your idiotic statement concerning the constitution and the tea party picking and choosing what it likes out of it.

I'll only point out that I said "Not all Founders were solidly against foreign entanglements." If you like, I'm sure I can track down documentation to support the well-known fact that some Founders were in favor of interceding against England on behalf of France.

? Originally Posted by mastermind238

Then how do you explain the Third Admendment?

Constitution , History and Standing Armies. Read it and weap never and mastermind. COG got enough sense not to put this dick in his mouth! Our Foundinf Fathers were not for this huge military industrial complex.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7779 Originally Posted by WTF

The early colonists of America considered the militia an important social structure, necessary to provide defense and public safety [wiki].

This requirement dated back to the English Muster Law of 1572. These men would, when needed, be called upon to protect the enterprise [business or religious venture] of the colony. When the militias failed to provide the degree of protection needed, bounties were offered to enlist men into service for a set period of time: the men were paid. During the American Revolution, land bounties were promised to men who would enlist.

During the French and Indian Wars, town militia formed a recruiting pool for the Provincial Forces. The legislature of the colony would authorize a certain force level for the season's campaign, based on that set recruitment quotas for each local militia. In theory, militia members could be drafted by lot if there were inadequate forces for the Provincial Regulars; however, the draft was rarely resorted to because provincial regulars were highly paid (more highly paid than their regular British Army counterparts) and rarely engaged in combat [wiki].


American colonists found they needed protection against Native American, Spanish and French marauders, so they established militias. These men would, when needed, be called upon to protect the enterprise [business or religious venture] of the colony. “The tradition of the militia stretched far back into English history, to the Saxon fyrd of the time before the Norman conquest and to the Assize of Arms of Henry II in the twelfth century, which required all able-bodied freemen between the ages of sixteen and sixty to bear arms in defense of their country. From these beginnings emerged the institution of the militia, which was organized on the county basis but owed allegiance to the central government. The militia was based on the principle that a freeman had an obligation to fight for his country in war and to prepare to fight in times of peace. It was a part-time citizen army, to be called out in an emergency—to repel an invasion and then return to the citizen mass whence it had come. Established when Englishmen had feared a professional army as an instrument of tyranny in the hands of an ambitious king before Britain had embarked on foreign ventures that demanded professional forces, it was in declining vigor while the colonies were being settled.

“It was, however, the organization to which the colonists turned in their need, because it was the form they knew most about and because retained the fear of a standing army. . . . Although the laws [in the colonies] varied in detail, they agreed on principle—all able-bodied males between certain ages owed military service to the colony and had to enroll in the militia. Every colony enacted such a compulsory-training law except Quaker influenced Pennsylvania . . .” (p. 8, T. Harry Williams, The History of American Wars).


The Battle of the Wabash

The lessons learned during the Indian Wars are not to be scoffed at:

After the American Revolution, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies. By 1784, the standing army had been reduced to 600, and then to 80. Irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army. Realizing 80 men were not enough to defend the frontier, Congress called on the states to send 700 volunteers. Only a fraction of that number was ever mustered.

In 1786 there were only 595 militiamen present for duty when Shays’ Rebellion made it quite apparent that a standing army was necessary to securely defend the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. General Washington had called for a core army numbering 2,600 to be augmented by state militiamen when necessary. General Washington believed the state militias should be comprised of all able-bodied men aged eighteen to fifty, and that they be self armed and subject to federal oversight. Congress disagreed.

The Constitution of 1789 provided for a standing army and the Militia Act of 1792 established that all able-bodied men aged eighteen to forty-five, and self-armed, to serve in a state militia. However, Congress opted not to impose federal oversight of the militias. Using the provisions of the Constitution, Congress authorized the creation of a single regiment of U.S. regulars’ to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal: a total of 1,200 men were authorized. Most of these soldiers were dispersed and garrisoned in forts protecting the western frontier.

In 1790, settlers in the Northwest were pleading with the central government for protection from Native American attacks. President Washington directed General in Chief Harmar to led the regiment, the Regiment of Infantry, consisting of 320 regulars, and over 1,000 militia on the punitive raid to protect the settlers and suppress the Native Americans.

The Harmar Campaign was a disaster. The Regiment of Infantry suffered over 70 casualties. Subsequently, March 1791, Congress allowed for a second regiment to be formed; thus, creating the 1st Regiment of Infantry and the 2nd Regiment of Infantry.

In 1791, General St. Clair was ordered to lead a punitive expedition comprised of the 1st Regiment (formerly The Regiment of Infantry) augmented by elements of the 2nd Regiment; plus, some militia against the Miamis. This force – comprised of almost the entire U.S. Army – advanced to the location of Indian settlements near the headwaters of the Wabash River in Ohio. St. Clair's Soldiers were improperly trained, ill equipped, underfed, and sickly.

On November 4, 1791, St. Clair’s army was surprised at breakfast by 1,000 warriors from the tribal confederation led by Miami Chief Little Turtle and the Shawnee Chief Blue Jacket at the ‘Battle of the Wabash’ (AKA ‘St. Clair's Defeat’, the ‘Columbia Massacre’, or the ‘Battle of a Thousand Slain’).

St. Clair summarized the battle a few days later in a letter to the Secretary of War. Out of his initial force numbering nearly 1,400, the American casualty rate, among the soldiers, was 97.4 percent, including 632 of 920 killed (69%) and 264 wounded. Nearly all of the 200 camp followers (wives, prostitutes, sutlers and teamsters) were slaughtered, for a total of 832 Americans killed. Approximately one-quarter of the entire U.S. Army had been wiped out. Only 24 of the 920 officers and men engaged came out of the battle unscathed. The Miamis and Shawnee confederation suffered about 61, with at least 21 killed. ‘The Battle of the Wabash’ was—and remains—the greatest defeat (surpassing even Custer’s defeat) in the history of the U.S. Army.

After this debacle, St. Clair resigned from the army at the request of President Washington, but continued to serve as Governor of the Northwest Territory. This debacle also prompted Congress to increase the size of the standing army to 5,000.


Last year, December 7th, was the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. As we reflect on that fateful day, Americans should remember that the strike came without notice or even a declaration of war–despite many Americans’ desire for isolationism even in the face of mounting aggression.

Today, there are those who would like America to return to an era of disengagement while also slashing military spending to dangerous levels. But as Pearl Harbor taught us, the United States must be ready to defend herself, both at home and abroad. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/07/...odays-defense/.

Then how do you explain the Third Admendment? Originally Posted by WTF

Good Lord man! What does quartering soldiers in private homes on US soil (a common occurrence in the Colonies under British rule) have to do with "foreign entanglements?" Do you even understand what this thread is about? Are there Tea Party members out there advocating the stationing of US soldiers in private residences? If so, that's news to me.

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;2824775]


Last year, December 7th, was the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. As we reflect on that fateful day, Americans should remember that the strike came without notice or even a declaration of war–despite many Americans’ desire for isolationism even in the face of mounting aggression.

Today, there are those who would like America to return to an era of disengagement while also slashing military spending to dangerous levels. But as Pearl Harbor taught us, the United States must be ready to defend herself, both at home and abroad. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/07/pearl-harbor-70-years-later-a-lesson-for-todays-defense/. [/QUOTE][QUOTE]

I realize this is with hindsight but only a blind man could not have seen that our policy up to that point towards Japan was boxing them in a corner.

We learnt the wrong lesson. Instead of not sticking our nose in places we had no business being, we have doubled down in regards to Defense spending. Exactly as founders warned us against. We do it for our business owners interest. Not for the best interest of the general population. Yet the general population has to fight the wars for the money'd interests.

Good Lord man! What does quartering soldiers in private homes on US soil (a common occurrence in the Colonies under British rule) have to do with "foreign entanglements?" Do you even understand what this thread is about? Are there Tea Party members out there advocating the stationing of US soldiers in private residences? If so, that's news to me. Originally Posted by mastermind238

If you do not know the history of the Constitution, how the fuck can we have a intelligent discussion on the subject? Typical Tea wipe...

If you do not know the history of the Constitution, how the fuck can we have a intelligent discussion on the subject? Typical Tea wipe...
Originally Posted by WTF

Well, here's the entire text of the Third Amendment to which you made reference:

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

How exactly, is that relevant to a discussion about "foreign entanglements," and specifically to your earlier statement regarding the Tea Party members somehow being selective about which part of the Constitution we'd like to see upheld?

Please explain to me which part of the "history of the Constitution" I'm missing that keeps me from understanding your otherwise idiotic reference to the Third Amendment. You can't deny that you made such a reference. It's right there in post #35.

Just saying that I lack the requisite background to hold an intelligent discussion with you sounds like bluster - an attempt to avoid the discussion altogether. Just saying "well Mastermind is too stupid or too ignorant for me to have a conversation about this, so I'm not gonna" doesn't get you off the hook. You can't hide. Your acolytes here may let you get away with it, but I won't. You made an idiotic statement, in support of a position that is indefensible. Deal with it.

And I'm still waiting for WTF's brilliant rebuttal of post #20 in this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=477254&page=2

But not here, of course.

I have a lot of Libertarian views on limited government and personal freedom. However, I think the notion that we can essentially become isolationist militarily is unrealistic. The founders were big on avoiding foreign entanglements but that was a radically different world. These days, I don't think we have much choice but to be engaged militarily. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I think Ron Paul's belief, that Iran going nuclear is none of our business, is crazy. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I was talking to joe bloe, a Tea Nut.

He is one that wants smaller government, yet there is nothing in the Constitution about policing the world. Our founders were in fact strongly opposed to it. Jefferson thought that and banking could be our down fall. Turns out, he was spot on.

Listen to Thomas Jefferson: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." Note that Jefferson identified both banking institutions and standing armies as being "dangerous to our liberties." James Madison said, "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen." Elbridge Gerry (Vice President under James Madison) called standing armies "the bane of liberty."

I'm following along just fine. In post #35 you quoted something I said, and then made a reference to the Third Amendment that was simply idiotic. My follow-up posts have been entirely on target, having to do with THAT post, and the follow-up posts.

Now answer the question. In post #32 I said I could produce evidence that some Founders favored siding with France against England, which clearly would have been a "foreign entanglement." Then in post #35 you quote that statement, and then spout some irrelevant bullshit about he Third Amendment. Explain yourself, if you can.

Here, let me help you out. Perhaps you thought the Third Amendment somehow prohibits the formation of a standing army. Am I right?

Here, let me help you out. Perhaps you thought the Third Amendment somehow prohibits the formation of a standing army. Am I right? Originally Posted by mastermind238

No you are not right.

The founders clearly thought that a standing army would be problematic in passage of the Constitution. . They stuck the Third amendment in to appease folks fears that a standing army would be a problem.
The vast military industrial complex has proven to be our demise , not from breaking doors down on its own citizens but robbing them with unjust taxes for unjust wars.
One could argue that the military actually paid for itself with the slaughter of the Indians but since WWII it has been a net drag on our economy. It is but another bloated branch of government. It is in fact the biggest branch of government. If you total up all its cost it consumes the vast majority of government expenditure.

Madison and Jefferson had it right.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin677.htm

The presence of the Third Amendment in the Bill of Rights is not evidence contradicting the statement that you quoted.

From post #32, quoted by you in post #35:

"Not all Founders were solidly against foreign entanglements."

In your reply you cited the Third Amendment, apparently meaning that it's inclusion somehow contradicts that statement of mine that you quoted. So the contradiction would go something like this: BECAUSE there is a Third Amendment, we can conclude that all Founders WERE solidly against foreign entanglements.

Why can't you just admit that you hurriedly dashed off a nonsensical reply to something I said, just because I said it and it couldn't go unchallenged?

The Third Amendment is NOT evidence that my statement is false. So I'll say it again: "Not all Founders were solidly against foreign entanglements." And I will offer again to produce evidence that at least SOME Founders favored siding with the French against the British in their little spat, thus proving that not all Founders were solidly against foreign entanglements. And in this endeavor, the Third Amendment is irrelevant.