Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #151
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So let's see, a division which is considered and ancestor to a battalion of the US Army, which was created by a State and not federal government and which an expert in US Military history says that no modern division of the US military has any relation to the Continental army. Hmm, seems to me that this is more a tradition thing than it is an actual link.
    This is pathetic.
    You're SO concerned with not being wrong that you'll do anything to avoid having to admit as much.

    There is a unit in the present day standing army that has continually been part of the standing US army since 1777. The historical record of the unit, which I cited to you, proves this.

    That this unit exists proves, unquestionably, that there is no way whatsoever for you to then argue that the standing army of the Revolution was disbanded in toto.

    So, keep on lying to yourself and to everyone else.

  2. #152
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is pathetic.
    You're SO concerned with not being wrong that you'll do anything to avoid having to admit as much.

    There is a unit in the present day standing army that has continually been part of the standing US army since 1777. The historical record of the unit, which I cited to you, proves this.

    That this unit exists proves, unquestionably, that there is no way whatsoever for you to then argue that the standing army of the Revolution was disbanded in toto.

    So, keep on lying to yourself and to everyone else.
    No. First off, one division does not make an army. Second, I have cited an expert on US History and it is said that there is no relation. Third, in that citation, one of the reasons for not having a standing army is that under the Articles of Confederation the US Government couldn't lay tax and thus couldn't raise money to keep a standing army. The division you quoted first off was not part of the US Continental Army. Secondly, it is considered an ancestor to a division in the military and that is why it is given the distinction of being the oldest division in the military but it's not a proof.

    Experts and history say we did not have a standing army until the Constitution was adopted, we did not have a standing army under the Articles of Confederation.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #153
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No. First off, one division does not make an army
    Its apparent you're ever going to admit you're wrong, when its been so obviously been proven that you are.
    So, I shant waste any more time here.

  4. #154
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this exercise is...

    Is Ikari arguing that the President ain't really the CiC because when the CiC authority was granted to the President there was not a standing Army over which to exercise CiC responsibility?

    I'm pretty sure that Article II says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

    Hence, does it matter whether or not it was a national army or a military force consisting of state militia forces?
    Last edited by JMak; 01-07-09 at 03:58 PM.

  5. #155
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this exercise is...
    The point is for Ikari to see woy many different ways he can avoid having to to admit his argument doesnt have a leg to stand on.

  6. #156
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    I've already demonstrated and cited my post. You gave one division that wasn't initially part of the Continental Army, that is considered to be an ancestor of another division and therefore given a distinction of age, despite the fact that under the Articles of Confederation the Federal government hadn't the means to keep a standing army and against an expert in the field of US military history showing that there is no connection between the Continental Army and any modern day military force and then say that's proof enough. But it's not, there's nothing to trace, there's nothing to show they were retained as full time (which requires pay), and there's no army there. It's one division, a standing army has to be an army. One division of suspect origin and no proof of federal retention does not make a standing army. Experts verify that the Continental Army was not a standing army and that the Continental Army has no relation to our current one.

    But yeah, keep thinking you're right.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #157
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I've already demonstrated and cited my post. You gave one division that wasn't initially part of the Continental Army, that is considered to be an ancestor of another division and therefore given a distinction of age, despite the fact that under the Articles of Confederation the Federal government hadn't the means to keep a standing army and against an expert in the field of US military history showing that there is no connection between the Continental Army and any modern day military force and then say that's proof enough. But it's not, there's nothing to trace, there's nothing to show they were retained as full time (which requires pay), and there's no army there. It's one division, a standing army has to be an army. One division of suspect origin and no proof of federal retention does not make a standing army. Experts verify that the Continental Army was not a standing army and that the Continental Army has no relation to our current one.

    But yeah, keep thinking you're right.
    Just for argument's I'll concede these points.

    So what?

  8. #158
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Just for argument's I'll concede these points.

    So what?
    The initial point before all this deflection took place was that originally we didn't have a standing army. Therefore, the President is CinC of the military, but without a standing army in peace time there isn't much to CinC over. You'd have the skeletal infrastructure left but you wouldn't have any fighting capability. Thus, in order to go to war you required the Congress because they called up the troops. There was a natural check and balance, and a huge on at that, when it came to our military. The President was CinC when the Congress called up the military since there was no standing army at the time, the rhetoric agrees well with that of a non-standing army. I don't argue against a standing army nor do I argue that the President isn't CinC of that standing army. It was just that initially there was more of a check and we need to follow the Constitution now to enforce this check. Congress isn't given the power to "authorize military force", it has the power to declare war. Declarations of war call up a lot of bureaucracy and treaty and foreign relations.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #159
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,532

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.
    That was the Continental Army, not the US Army we have today. Certain "state" units can trace there lineage back to them, but they were not again part of the US Army then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And to John Adams, who was Preisdent 1797-1801.
    "Greene was authorized to grant furloughs for North Carolina troops; and the lines of Maryland and Pennsylvania serving under him were ordered to march for their respective States. Three months' pay was to be furnished the furloughed soldiers. They were also to keep their arms and accoutrements as an extra allowance. The furloughs amounted to discharges. Few of the recipients ever returned, and so a great portion of the army was gradually disbanded before the definitive treaty was concluded in September. A remnant of the Continental army remained at West Point under Knox until the British evacuated New York (Nov. 25, 1783). After that event they all received their discharge.
    " - The Continental Army

    It was the Continental Congress who disbanded the Army in 1783. My bad. J. Adams did disband the Army again under Alexander Hamilton.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Good. We agree then that there does NOT need to be a declaration of war for the President do be CinC.
    Glad to see you can change your mind
    Please point out were I ever said anything different or even implied it?

    I think that is what in certain circles we call a lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    In order to pass anything in Congress, you need a quorum. A handful of surviving members isn't sufficient.
    If we had a DOW, this would not even be an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You didnt address the question.
    Do you STILL argue that the President MUST first wait for a DoW before using military force against another state?
    What are you talking about??? I never said anything even close. Never even implied such an asinine thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    Because our success under a DOW is irrelevant.

  10. #160
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    I wouldnt call Blago's scandal dull, especially if you listen to some of the tapes of him and his wife.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •