Rush Limbaugh acts like a prick, woman recieves call from Obama

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

btw, You sound like Ms Fluke. You want others to pay for your wars. Like your children or grandkids. Cool, you have something in common with Ms Fluke. Watch out, Rush might call you a slutty war-monger!.

Another strawman. Yes, too intellectually challenging. If you work really hard WTF, its not too late to work Joe Paterno into this thread!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

On this we disagree. The third amendment had more than just one meaning or thought process put into it. Not sure when that song was written but I doubt if George Washington was still alive. No, but Madison, Adams and Jefferson were much alive when the Navy and Marines fought the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli in 1801.

Originally Posted by WTF

And yes, I understand their role today. That was not the role our founders had was my point. There was a huge back and forth on this issue in regards to the 3rd.

And Washington was alive when General St. Clair ineptly led almost the entire U.S. Army into Native American ambush where it was almost entirely destroyed.

After the American Revolution, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies. Irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of ‘a single regiment of U.S. regulars’ to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

In 1790, General in Chief Harmar led the regiment, the Regiment of Infantry, consisting of 320 regulars, and over 1,000 militia on the disastrous Harmar Campaign. 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 most 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 [wiki].

Thereafter, the concept of a small army was reconsidered, and a larger army was legislated into existence.

[JD Barleycorn]

I am not sure what the third amendment has to do with a standing army but maybe I missed a post. By the way, Washington died before the start of the 19th century when the Barbary wars were fought. There is some argument about when the song was written but it was made official following World War I.

I suppose this warped journey has something to do with refusing to pay for wars except, unlike contraception, defense is mentioned in the Constitution.

[dilbert firestorm]

staying with the topic, looks like some sponsors are having a sellers remorse for bailing out on rush

109, eh?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Another strawman. Yes, too intellectually challenging. If you work really hard WTF, its not too late to work Joe Paterno into this thread!

No need to, you seem to have worked it in.

Good job on using the quote feature correctly gnadfly.

You are doing so well since your latest instructions.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Thereafter, the concept of a small army was reconsidered, and a larger army was legislated into existence.

Do you think Jefferson would be for standing armies in other countries when that was in part the reason for our own revolution?

The quartering of troops on private property is one of the grievances of the colonists specifically mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The section that mentions it reads like this:
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...amendment.html

We can look further at the history and see that folks that believed in smaller government were led to believe that a large standing army was not to be had.

Once the states began to debate the newly proposed Constitution, it became apparent that the Constitution would not pass without changing the minds of its critics. Proponents of the Constitution were called Federalists. They wanted a stronger central government because the current government, governed by the Articles of Confederation, could barely function. The Federalists were led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and George Washington.
The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution. They were against a strong federal or central government because they feared the government would grow too powerful and take away the rights of the people. Men such as Patrick Henry, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry were leading anti-Federalists.
The Federalists came up with a compromise offer known as the Massachusetts Compromise, that would eventually persuade enough anti-Federalists to vote to support the Constitution so it could go into effect. In the Massachusetts Compromise, the Federalists promised that the First Congress would take into consideration the states' proposed amendments and add a bill of rights to the Constitution if the opponents would just vote yes to accept it. This promise persuaded enough of the critics to vote yes to accept the Constitution and it became the law of the land.
Keeping the promise, James Madison proposed a list of twenty amendments to the First Congress in a June 8, 1789 speech. Congress debated these amendments and eventually sent twelve of them to the states for their consideration. Ten of them were agreed upon by the states

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...#ixzz1p0QHzV1U

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I suppose this warped journey has something to do with refusing to pay for wars except, unlike contraception, defense is mentioned in the Constitution.

The concept many of you are espousing is one of religious beliefs being able to trump paying taxes(I know, I know, ok how about in a round about way) My religious beliefs do not allow me to pay for something like that. Well then do not allow diversity into your university. Do not take Federal Tax dollars. That is where this university has lost the moral high ground. My tax dollars are going to support this university.

We wandered to the third because it always goes back to the constitution with some. So how can you wrap your mind around a Defense Department that our founding fathers wanted no part of , yet scream bloody murder when an institution that recieves Federal Tax dollars cries about the Federal Government telling it to get in line with the times!

[Laz]

Originally Posted by WTF

The concept many of you are espousing is one of religious beliefs being able to trump paying taxes(I know, I know, ok how about in a round about way) My religious beliefs do not allow me to pay for something like that. Well then do not allow diversity into your university. Do not take Federal Tax dollars. That is where this university has lost the moral high ground. My tax dollars are going to support this university.

We wandered to the third because it always goes back to the constitution with some. So how can you wrap your mind around a Defense Department that our founding fathers wanted no part of , yet scream bloody murder when an institution that receives Federal Tax dollars cries about the Federal Government telling it to get in line with the times!

There is no requirement that the federal government subsidize a religious college. I would agree that the federal government should not be doing that just as they have no right to dictate to them the health insurance coverage they offer.

You may argue the size of a military the founding fathers would support but that they believed the federal government was responsible for national defense is in the constitution. It would be hard to believe that they would support no military unless we were at war.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Laz

There is no requirement that the federal government subsidize a religious college. I would agree that the federal government should not be doing that just as they have no right to dictate to them the health insurance coverage they offer.

You may argue the size of a military the founding fathers would support but that they believed the federal government was responsible for national defense is in the constitution. It would be hard to believe that they would support no military unless we were at war.

I agree on both counts. The university should not be taking tax money and the government would hold no sway over it. I also agre that no standing army not practical in todays times. But it would be hard for me to believe they are for the size and scope that the military complex has become. I do not think you are for either extreme. I know I'm not.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you think Jefferson would be for standing armies in other countries when that was in part the reason for our own revolution?

The quartering of troops on private property is one of the grievances of the colonists specifically mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The section that mentions it reads like this:
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...amendment.html

We can look further at the history and see that folks that believed in smaller government were led to believe that a large standing army was not to be had.

Once the states began to debate the newly proposed Constitution, it became apparent that the Constitution would not pass without changing the minds of its critics. Proponents of the Constitution were called Federalists. They wanted a stronger central government because the current government, governed by the Articles of Confederation, could barely function. The Federalists were led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and George Washington.
The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution. They were against a strong federal or central government because they feared the government would grow too powerful and take away the rights of the people. Men such as Patrick Henry, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry were leading anti-Federalists.
The Federalists came up with a compromise offer known as the Massachusetts Compromise, that would eventually persuade enough anti-Federalists to vote to support the Constitution so it could go into effect. In the Massachusetts Compromise, the Federalists promised that the First Congress would take into consideration the states' proposed amendments and add a bill of rights to the Constitution if the opponents would just vote yes to accept it. This promise persuaded enough of the critics to vote yes to accept the Constitution and it became the law of the land.
Keeping the promise, James Madison proposed a list of twenty amendments to the First Congress in a June 8, 1789 speech. Congress debated these amendments and eventually sent twelve of them to the states for their consideration. Ten of them were agreed upon by the states

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...#ixzz1p0QHzV1U

Yes. The Founding Fathers were against standing armies when they wrote and adopted the Constitution. Initially, they preferred to rely on a navy for national security. Nevertheless, many - including Jefferson - amended their thoughts, as per the evidence cited above, by the time Jefferson became president. The "Corps of Discovery Expedition" was a military expedition that Jefferson sent into the American Northwest. That military expedition entered into territory claimed by Spain and inhabited and claimed by Native Americans. That expedition and Jefferson's dispatching the navy and the Marines to Tripoli speak volumes on his position on how and when to use the military.

[WTF]

So jefferson was aganist it before he became president. Amazing how once they become president they change their mind about the power of the federal government.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

So jefferson was aganist it before he became president. Amazing how once they become president they change their mind about the power of the federal government.

The evolution began under the Articles of Confederation with Shay's Rebellion, which led to the Constitutional Convention - in order to create a stronger central government to deal with such uprisings. It has continued to evolve since that time, but those who were living at the time, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc., saw a need for the initial modifications to their belief that there should be no standing army.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Laz

There is no requirement that the federal government subsidize a religious college. I would agree that the federal government should not be doing that just as they have no right to dictate to them the health insurance coverage they offer.

You may argue the size of a military the founding fathers would support but that they believed the federal government was responsible for national defense is in the constitution. It would be hard to believe that they would support no military unless we were at war.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like a good base for a cogent thought. I think the grammar is confusing. But, damn, WTF, you're paying attention! Help yourself to a cookie.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The evolution began under the Articles of Confederation with Shay's Rebellion, which led to the Constitutional Convention - in order to create a stronger central government to deal with such uprisings. It has continued to evolve since that time, but those who were living at the time, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc., saw a need for the initial modifications to their belief that there should be no standing army.

So we have become the British, just a the British became the Romans?


It sounds to me like we are quartering our armies in the form of unjust tax burdens. I see hardly any difference from that and the third amendment.

Is not the major Tea Party bitch high taxes? Large government? This military that is equal in size to all the other worlds armies combined seems to me to have become exactly what the framers wished it not to.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Is not the major Tea Party bitch high taxes? Large government? This military that is equal in size to all the other worlds armies combined seems to me to have become exactly what the framers wished it not to.

As much as I HATE to admit it, I actually agree with WTF on this one.