1. ME says:

    Nice Car Fool!

  2. bac says:

    People who have not served and may be not serve at all, can contribute to the discussion. For now at least, there is freedom of speech. What is a bit disturbing is the compassion these young republicans show toward the people that are in the military. One college student said he has college to finish, which is fine but there are soldiers over in Iraq that had the same goal before the war. There are soldiers in Iraq that have families back home and jobs that would have been waiting for them had their tours of duty not been extended. In the eyes of those young republicans, I see a romantic movie theater war lust but no compassion for those actually serving in the war. These young republicans keep saying we will win this war but they do not know what it would take to Win and they do not know how to describe the Win.

  3. Smartalix says:


    It is ad hominem to call them “chickenhawks” if they were expressing an opinion that had nothing to do with cowardice. For example, if you say that Apple is better than IBM and I say your opinion means squat because you are a coward that is an ad hominem.

    However, if the topic is germane to the subject, it is not. For example, if someone says that we should send people into a meatgrinding hell of a war launched on lies and I say those are very large woirds for someone who never served, that comment is germane to the subject of war, combat, and military issues and therefore not an ad hominem.

    The person could say that my observation makes for a weak argument as their intense patriotism and devotion to country is sufficient, but then I would counter that having served gives a person additional perspective on the concept of service to country.

    The fact that we can debate the latter point demonstrates that the comment on service is not a simple ad hominem but a criticism of the experience of the subject, a topic open to debate and very germane to the subject.

    These children think they’re adults butt they have no concept of responsibility. Maybe a few years in the military would give them some discipline and integrity.

  4. bobbo says:

    65–Thank you Alix==the whole discussion boils down to EXACTLY what question is being asked.

    Should the GOUSA stay in Iraq and fight the terrorist there in order to avoid fighting them here? On that question, the chickenhawk hypocricy is pure ad hominem.

    Your example of the “meat grinding hell of a war” is more difficult because it is vague. If by that phrase, you simply mean Iraq–then that is ad hominem as stated above. If it is more tactical, calling for military expertise, then that question of qualifications does become relevant. Course, I could make my own ad hominem attack and say that no one under the age of 31 should be listened to seriously about anything==but that would be ad hominem. Better to go why the actual arguement is WRONG, rather than argue about who is making it.

    So, VERY interesting to me how many people would say that ad hominem arguement is bad, but then engage in it without recognizing it. Thinking—Thinking Logically—we primates still haven’t mastered it.

  5. Mister Mustard says:

    Bobbo, either you’re a troll, or you too are going for a lifetime pass to the virgins’ movie theater. I can’t believe you have the time and energy for this kind of endless (and meaningless) debate.

    Cripes, as they say around here.

  6. bobbo says:

    67–“too?” Speak for yourself.

    As to the meaningfulness of this endeavor, it is a new experience for me. Don’t know how long it will last. I get sufficient meaning from it as I think about what to post and what I have posted and what others have posted. There are quite a few good posters here and some good humor. “I look forward to serving the micro-chip overlords.”–cracks me up every time I read that. I admire others for their expertise and willingness to share. I have an opportunity to beocme more skillful when up against those I disagree with. I enjoy what I learn.

  7. sayuncle says:

    What were we discussing now?? Oh yeah…

    That “officially not gay” person is Cheneys other daughter.

    They practice their lock step young in order to get it right when they are all growned up.

    If X then B. No B, then no X.
    A or B. No B, then A. B, and A. A, and B. (the inclusive instance)

    I aced propositional & predicate logic.

    So many flames so few marshmellows.

    Scotty beam me up!!

  8. bobbo says:

    65—Alix==something about our exchange has left me uncomfortable. I don’t think we connected, or atleast I didn’t.

    YES, I agree that going to the qualifications of someone to hold their opinion can be a valid exercise in ad hominem argument==but I don’t think it has to be as completely irrelevant as you suggest in order to be invalid.

    We do have a pretty simple hypothetical–in order to express an opinion on whether we should stay or leave Iraq:

    1. Should one be atleast somewhat older than 6 years?//Ad hominem but valid as it goes to “experience” a valid qualification for having valid opinions.

    2. Should one have some exposure to USA and MiddleEast history? // Yes, again ad hominem but a valid predicate going to the qualifications of someone to speak on a subject.

    3. and the point of this thread: Should someone be willing to fight as a soldier in Iraq in order to have a valid opinion on whether or not the USA should be there? That is an ad hominem argument AND it does not go to the qualifications of a person holding the opinion. It goes to an invalid linkage of patriotism or duty and not the pro’s and con’s of USA foreign policy. I venture only 3 people in congress might be willing to go to Iraq as a soldier? Is Senator Biden unqualified to say we should get out of Iraq because he wont serve as a soldier? If he is not unqualified for that reason, then neither can the cowardly chickehawk priviledge republican spawn be unqualified for the same reason.

  9. bac says:

    #70 “and the point of this thread: Should someone be willing to fight as a soldier in Iraq in order to have a valid opinion on whether or not the USA should be there?”

    All opinions are valid in the sense that they are opinions not fact. Your question is backwards. People do not perform actions in order to have an opinion but they have an opinion and perform actions to support the opinion. For example: Joe does not fight in Iraq to have a valid opinion, he fights in Iraq to support his valid opinion.

    You do not need to be qualified in any thing to have an opinion. One opinion might have more weight if the person giving the opinion is knowledgeable in the field of the opinion.

    These college students have stated their opinion but fail to give weighted support to their opinions.

  10. Mister Mustard says:

    >> ”too?” Speak for yourself.

    I was speaking about the guy with the soft-drink IV at the gaming convention, Bobbster. The one who spends about as much time playing World of Warcraft as you do trying to imitate Plato. You’re both in the running for the virgin movie tickets.

  11. Bobby says:

    Wow, what a video. That film maker is just there to cause trouble and give a substance less one sided view. A video like this influences those who do not research subjects. Also, I am not gay. 🙂 Ok, that was a funny part……

  12. bobbo says:

    71–Bac==Good point but in context the issue is when debating whether or not GOUSA should be in Iraq, is it valid to negate an opinion if it comes from someone who would not volunteer to serve there?

    Does that go to weight and credibility or is it a completely invalid ad hominem attack? I say the latter.

    72–I admit I’m too slow to stay up with switching contexts without a heads up. Thanks for the Plato reference, but that is too much praise.

  13. Traaxx says:

    Yeah, everyone that supported WWII, went to war also. Were was FDR, during his healthy period in WWI, etc. Exactly what is your point. Anyone that is willing to fight the war, through support or politics should be over there fighting. If you’re against the war you should go over there and directly support the governments of Islam, by living there with them.

    What would be nice is to see every liberal/commie put in a collective and made to live their idea of a government and community, but we know what that would be – Stalin, Mao, Tito, Hilter, Pol Pot, Idi Amin………..

    This is the same stuff that we get from liberal/commie reporters..lies, let’s see there’s Jayson Blair – Demoncrat, Jay Forman -Demoncrat, Stephen Glas – Demoncrat, Janet Cook – Demoncrat,, Michael A Bellesiles – Demoncrat, Jan Hendrik Schon – Demoncrat.

    It’s you’re Jimmy Carter that got us into this position, starting with Iran. Since all the Demoncrat love Jimmy so much they should be going over and fixing his mess, which has never be fixed. Either that or go live in a Commie country and be happy – it’s what you really want, then you can feel sorry for yourselves for real.

    No it’ll be Nationalist that’ll end up paying for this mess, while rich little Demoncrat stay here, like in Vietnam, throwing fits and riots. Why don’t we ever see inside reporting on Young Demoncrats – don’t want to show the drugs, booze, and piercings or is the convention abortion clinic/temple that you don’t to show as you kneel down and pray to Baalzebub.

  14. Sounds The Alarm says:

    #75 – “while rich little Demoncrat stay here” – WTF? The only rich I know are Republicans.

    BTW – literacy is a good think, I believe its “Democrat” & “Beelzebub”, not “Demoncrat ” & “Baalzebub”.

    Let me guess – you’re home schooled and I bet never served in our nation’s armed forces.

    Hi there Chicken Hawk!

  15. Mister Mustard says:

    >>“while rich little Demoncrat stay here” – WTF?

    I think the poster is Boris. Or Natasha.

    Next we get moose and squirrel.

  16. drjackdaniels says:

    man these guys n gals r a bunch of cowards all they do is just talk let just send them to the frontline n they will piss in their pants or cry out mommy

  17. Matt McCormick says:

    Why didn’t any Democrats join the army when Clinton had us in Kosovo?

  18. Parisa says:

    THESE people are really …, they don’t even know what war means! and they don’t know what is going on to the people who live in war situation. how they can be this much CRULE and BELIND???
    why they are agree with war? what war bought to them?
    if the answer is: to protect theire country against the terorrists, why terorrists are agianst USA not Sweden? what is different between Sweden and USA? it’s better people think a little bit and know that until they are back of war, the war will back to theire country as well. If they go for war thay make enemy for themselves.

  19. tom davidson says:

    Re: the Iraq war, has anyone heeded the words of the military strategist Sun Tzu, who wrote The Art of War about 2500 years ago? He said something to the effect that wars fought far from home wear down the troops, exhaust the treasury, and end in defeat…. Think Yang Di of the Sui Dynasty who got his ass beat trying to conquer Gao Li (present day Korea). Think Napoleon in Russia. Think Hitler in Russia. Think the US in Korea, in Vietnam and now in Iraq. I see a pattern emerging….. I heard that The Art of War is required reading in all our military academies. IS ANYONE LISTENING TO WHAT SUN TZU IS TRYING TO TELL US? Meanwhile, bridges fall in Minnesota, and ancient steam pipes explode underneath New York City streets….

  20. ECA says:

    AND fighting a war that does NOT affect the Person personally, is also a loosing battle..

  21. robert says:

    Muhammad Ali showed courage when he resisted going to Vietnam because he actually paid a price for his stance. These hypocrites can’t make the same type of commitment to their convictions. And yet these neocon hypocrites are often of the same mindset as those who question the worthiness of John McCain to serve as a leader in t heir own party? No wonder Vietnam era “chickenhawk” Bush got the nomination over McCain.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5424 access attempts in the last 7 days.