"National Walk-Out Day"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2018, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: If Fred says the Framers" did not envision a standing army,"

and you ask "What was George Washington in charge of during the Revolution?"

Then you were just wondering if an army was an army, not whether it was a standing army?

Because if Washington was in charge of an army that would refute a claim that the Framers did not envision a standing army?

It's rather simple logic.  The future United States required an army to expel the English from the country.  Therefore, the possibility of needing an army is well established in the minds of all the Framers.  Now, if you want to argue whether they wanted a standing army, that's a completely different story.  To claim that they couldn't even envision ever having one is illogical to the point of absurdity.

(03-20-2018, 09:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think the founders did envision the possibility of a standing army, and they placed checks on it by putting the President in charge, but requiring Congress to pay for it every two years.

Wait, how dare you use common sense and logic!

(03-20-2018, 09:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is impossible for me to know what SSF is saying because he never explained exactly what he meant.  All he said was that "criminals" getting killed did not count as murders for his purposes.

If anything I said was wrong he can correct me with additional information. 

Or else he can just make some more meaningless snarky comments that explain nothing.

Odd that you and your little cabal are the only ones who ever have this comprehension problem.

(03-20-2018, 09:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How I read it was he wasn't talking about your average misdemeanor guy, but your violent felons such as gang members, meth dealers etc.

Ahh, you read it as written.  Perhaps you can draw Fred and his friends a small "how to" book in MS Paint.  

(03-20-2018, 10:42 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, it seems clear to anyone not arguing with SSF, that he was clearly talking about gang members and other similar "criminals". 

It's hard for me to know how to respond when someone actually reads points made with a critical eye and not with the intent to deliberately skew them so as to avoid the actual point being made, to score cheap points and to devolve the discussion to debating irrelevancies.