When Hagel sponsors a bill that calls for reinstatement of the draft then he'll have "calls for draft". Untill then he's only doing what politicians do best - - Running their mouths with no action to back it up. Someone will explain the reality of the situation to him and that will be that.
When Hagel sponsors a bill that calls for reinstatement of the draft then he'll have "calls for draft". Untill then he's only doing what politicians do best - - Running their mouths with no action to back it up. Someone will explain the reality of the situation to him and that will be that.
Main Entry: 1draft
Pronunciation: 'draft, 'dr[a']ft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English draght; akin to Old English dragan to draw -- more at DRAW
9 a (1) : a system for or act of selecting individuals from a group (as for compulsory military service)
Guess I'm unaware of the nuance in the difference.
[/quote]
I'll PM you my degree in Public Policy; you do the same?[/quote]
John Galt, you are again engaging in logical fallacies. First, you are suggesting you are more educated than me, which besides being highly unlikely is simply irrelevant to the debate. It's a form of ad hominem. Second, you are appealing to authority. I highly suggest you do a google search for logical fallacies.
I'll PM you my degree in Public Policy; you do the same?[/quote]
John Galt, you are again engaging in logical fallacies. First, you are suggesting you are more educated than me, which besides being highly unlikely is simply irrelevant to the debate. It's a form of ad hominem. Second, you are appealing to authority. I highly suggest you do a google search for logical fallacies.
I'll PM you my degree in Public Policy; you do the same?[/quote]
John Galt, you are again engaging in logical fallacies. First, you are suggesting you are more educated than me, which besides being highly unlikely is simply irrelevant to the debate. It's a form of ad hominem. Second, you are appealing to authority. I highly suggest you do a google search for logical fallacies.[/quote]
Put your money where your month is? PM me....
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: chess9
What's wrong with you people and this dumb Senator. Didn't he and thee get the message from UltraQuiet? There will be no draft. UQ is on the same base with the Chief of Naval Personnel, so that makes him the resident expert.
Nope, no draft is coming.
Sheezh.... and a Republican is making the suggestion to boot.
-Robert
Do you have a point, you stupid old man? Hmm, do you? I guess what I should start doing is just lying about it like you do or pretending to know something that I don't. Better yet I think I'll just ridicule and call you out everytime you post something stupid and constantly ridicule you for it (bandwith allowing). I think we'll start with your prediction of all the outrage that was going to ensue after the RNC advised the networks not to run the moveon ads. Where was all the outrage Bobby? You said there was going to be a huge outcry. Where was it? Shall I revive the thread?
When there's a draft, you'll have a point and I'll admit I was wrong. Until then I'll put my sources against anyones, especially some stupid old fool who gets his info peddling a three wheeler up and down South Beach.
Like how you, e-tech, charrison and Amused One said that the US were just saber rattling before the war?
Yeah, you admit your mistakes. :roll:
I assume you're riding around on the seat-less model with the training wheels, right. Big grin on your face? I really don't care about the "fit" part but I do hope I'm not half as dumb. Go peddle your trike Bobby, you're dismissed.
John Galt, you are again engaging in logical fallacies. First, you are suggesting you are more educated than me, which besides being highly unlikely is simply irrelevant to the debate. It's a form of ad hominem. Second, you are appealing to authority. I highly suggest you do a google search for logical fallacies.[/quote]
Put your money where your month SIC is? PM me....[/quote]
John Galt, I am afraid you don't understand that exchanging credentials would not impact this argument and would serve only to make you feel inadequate. Again, if you read up on logical fallacies, you might be able to make a cogent post. Remember, it's American to use reason. American scientific prowess is an outgrowth of logic. By denying logic, you are being unamerican.
Put your money where your month SIC is? PM me....[/quote]
John Galt, I am afraid you don't understand that exchanging credentials would not impact this argument and would serve only to make you feel inadequate. Again, if you read up on logical fallacies, you might be able to make a cogent post. Remember, it's American to use reason. American scientific prowess is an outgrowth of logic. By denying logic, you are being unamerican.[/quote]
Thought so...I guess your "highly unlikely" assertion is off the table.
If you were one tenth as smart you would have thought up a better response... It wasn't even witty...
Small men uses the big words, of that you are all the proof neccessary.
John,
If you would like to fantasize that you are more educated than me, please feel free to do so. What you need to learn is that it will not make your unsound arguments any stronger. Try and stand up for what's right and use logic. I know you would rather appeal to emotion than to logic. But remember logic is part of the Western tradition. Emotion is for religious fanatics like Osama Bin Laden and George Bush. If you are courageous enough, I know you can do the right thing.
If you would like to fantasize that you are more educated than me, please feel free to do so. What you need to learn is that it will not make your unsound arguments any stronger. Try and stand up for what's right and use logic. I know you would rather appeal to emotion than to logic. But remember logic is part of the Western tradition. Emotion is for religious fanatics like Osama Bin Laden and George Bush. If you are courageous enough, I know you can do the right thing.
Yeah, you're two posts in this thread are the very epitome of wit and intelligence. I'm thinking about printing them out and putting them in a scrap book. :roll:
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Infohawk - You said it was highly unlikely that he was more educated than you. You're dodging the question in your response.
As another point, you calling someone else's arguments unsound and not the result of logic does not make it so. That's just an opinion.
Michael
As another point, you calling someone else's arguments unsound and not the result of logic does not make it so. That's just an opinion.
Michael
Originally posted by: Klixxer
You DO have some wit after all, too late though.
Better luck next time.
You have yet to show either and luck isn't going to help you.
Michael, on the first point you're right. But on the latter point, you're not. There is no doubt that JohnGalt was engaging in logical fallacies. He was being unreasonable. If that's an opinion, then so is 2+2=4.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Infohawk - When engaged in a discussion (like the one in this thread) where you are making claims that another poster is uninformed, then "appealing to authority" by citing a degree is a valid point (if the degree is relevent). You made a counter claim of being more educated (which doesn't transform him into being uninformed, just that you might be on equal or better footing in deciding what an informed opinion is).
However, you're dodging the question (as you admitted), which casts your other assertions into doubt.
Again, you saying that he is using logical fallicies does not make it so and you are not even close to proving it with your points. The fact that 2+2=4 does not prove the points you made.
Michael
However, you're dodging the question (as you admitted), which casts your other assertions into doubt.
Again, you saying that he is using logical fallicies does not make it so and you are not even close to proving it with your points. The fact that 2+2=4 does not prove the points you made.
Michael
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I was thinking that all the people who are hot for war can get an opportunity to stand up for their foreign policies.
Do you think if they do bring back the draft they will let rich and connected get out of it?
Michael, you really need to do a google search for "logical fallacies."
Let me explain to you how appeals to authority work. Just because someone is an authority on a subject on something does not make them right. Imagine a PHD in math. He is an authority in Math. He says 1+1 does not equal 2. He is wrong. It does. This shows that someone's authority does not impact their argument. You can be an authority and be wrong. Logical reasoning is a basic tool all debaters must agree on. Logical fallacies are a part of logic. Read up on logic and logical fallacies. It will be worth your while.
Second, I admitted that discussing the degree was dodging the question of this topic. Our degrees our not the topic! Otherwise I could bring something completely different up and call you on it. Example: What color is your mother's pubic hair? If you answer you are dodging the question!!! /example. Who cares? See point #1 why our degrees are not relevant.
Let me explain to you how appeals to authority work. Just because someone is an authority on a subject on something does not make them right. Imagine a PHD in math. He is an authority in Math. He says 1+1 does not equal 2. He is wrong. It does. This shows that someone's authority does not impact their argument. You can be an authority and be wrong. Logical reasoning is a basic tool all debaters must agree on. Logical fallacies are a part of logic. Read up on logic and logical fallacies. It will be worth your while.
Second, I admitted that discussing the degree was dodging the question of this topic. Our degrees our not the topic! Otherwise I could bring something completely different up and call you on it. Example: What color is your mother's pubic hair? If you answer you are dodging the question!!! /example. Who cares? See point #1 why our degrees are not relevant.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Only one problem with this plan. While the military is having a higher degree of difficulty than in more normal times of meeting recruiting/re-enlistment goals, they're still meeting them. The problem isn't that we can't find the bodies, it's that Congress has not increased authorized end-troop strength levels commensurate with current needs.
To put it more simply, draft or no draft, there isn't currently a problem filling the armed forces with the 1.4 million or so troops Congress currently allows for. The problem is that those 1.4 million aren't enough. Raise the end troop level authorizations first, then worry about a draft later if you can't find the extra bodies.
Here we see another race baiting tool of a liberal NYC senator trying to make a political statement. Chuck Rangel is engaging in class warfare bringing up the "lower and middle class serve more" stuff again. Oh wait, this is Chuck Hagel? Well wealthy NeoCon's pay 50% of the taxes so they bankroll the war and don't have to serve.
Zephyr
Zephyr
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Infohawk - Again, you calling something a "logical fallacy" does not make it so.
You accused him of: "John Galt, you have surrendered to shallow analysis. It's not too late to use reason and win the battle against ignorance."
The relevent point is shallow analysis.
He offered up his degree as evidence that his analysis is not shallow. He made the counter claim that it is your analysis that is shallow.
Although him having the degree does not prove that he did not engage in shallow analysis, the depth of the analysis is subjective and academic credentials would lay some weight behind his assertion that he did not engage in shallow analysis.
You have continued to dodge the question about what credentials or reasoning you can offer to prove your assertions. One of your dodges is trying to hide behind debate definitions.
I'm not saying I agree with his assertions, but I actually doubt yours the more you dodge and evade.
You've made claims of having a much superior education.
Prove it.
Michael
You accused him of: "John Galt, you have surrendered to shallow analysis. It's not too late to use reason and win the battle against ignorance."
The relevent point is shallow analysis.
He offered up his degree as evidence that his analysis is not shallow. He made the counter claim that it is your analysis that is shallow.
Although him having the degree does not prove that he did not engage in shallow analysis, the depth of the analysis is subjective and academic credentials would lay some weight behind his assertion that he did not engage in shallow analysis.
You have continued to dodge the question about what credentials or reasoning you can offer to prove your assertions. One of your dodges is trying to hide behind debate definitions.
I'm not saying I agree with his assertions, but I actually doubt yours the more you dodge and evade.
You've made claims of having a much superior education.
Prove it.
Michael
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter