Two Plus Two Older Archives

Two Plus Two Older Archives (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Politics (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   An Open Challenge (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=312853)

DVaut1 08-11-2005 09:54 AM

An Open Challenge
 
To anyone who supports the Iraq War, but doesn't feel obligated to enlist because "I'm not needed."

I'll transfer someone $250 on Party or Stars if they can satisfactorilly demonstrate that they went to their local army recruiter, tried to enlist, but we're turned away because the military has no need for new volunteers.

Arnfinn Madsen 08-11-2005 10:10 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
Since I am a foreign citizen and in addition have taken part in anti-war demonstrations I guess I will be turned down. Can I still have $250? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I will send it to Amnesty .

DVaut1 08-11-2005 10:11 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Can I still have $250?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, sorry.

adios 08-11-2005 11:18 AM

What\'s the maximum enlistment age? (n/m)
 
.....

DVaut1 08-11-2005 11:21 AM

Re: What\'s the maximum enlistment age? (n/m)
 
39, I think? Someone with better knowledge will surely know. I thought it was 39, at least for reservists.

adios 08-11-2005 11:24 AM

No caveat in your challenge about age is there?(n/m)
 
.....

DVaut1 08-11-2005 11:26 AM

Re: No caveat in your challenge about age is there?(n/m)
 
Oh, of course, the military has to deem you capable of serving.

If the military sends you away because you're too old - it's not because they don't need volunteers, it's because you're (according to the military) not capable of serving.

To fulfill my challenge, the army has to turn you away with the justification that they don't need any new volunteers - as many have claimed.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll transfer someone $250 on Party or Stars if they can satisfactorilly demonstrate that they went to their local army recruiter, tried to enlist, but we're turned away because the military has no need for new volunteers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wes ManTooth 08-11-2005 11:30 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
Why $250?
Does the reason to be turned away have to be "because the military has no need for new volunteers"?
What is your point with this "Open Challange"?
If you are against the war, what does this prove?

DVaut1 08-11-2005 11:34 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why $250?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was rather arbitrary. It could have been $1 or $1,000,000,000; I can't lose because the military won't turn anyone away, because they need people.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are against the war, what does this prove?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the other thread, a few posters were claiming they don't feel obligated to serve because they were "quite confident the military doesn't need new volunteers."

I just want someone to take my challenge and demonstrate how confident they really are.

I hope whoever decides to take me up on it has their bags packed before they head off to the recruiter, though.

FishHooks 08-11-2005 11:39 AM

Re: No caveat in your challenge about age is there?(n/m)
 
Changing your rules now are ya? Just because people found a loophole, your word is not good.

adios 08-11-2005 11:44 AM

Re: No caveat in your challenge about age is there?(n/m)
 
I was giving OP a chance to clarify. Actually though age is probably in an important consideration as to who supports U.S. actions in Iraq and who doesn't. Don't have much time today (I've already spent too much here) to debate. I intend to get back to the Tree Hugger post later though.

DVaut1 08-11-2005 12:08 PM

Re: No caveat in your challenge about age is there?(n/m)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Changing your rules now are ya? Just because people found a loophole, your word is not good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't change my word; the OP is clear.

Broken Glass Can 08-11-2005 12:12 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
Your post tells us how well the economy is doing under Bush.

The military is actually having to compete with (horrors!) the private sector to get people hired.

Way to go President Bush. Labor shortage due to a great economy! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

DVaut1 08-11-2005 12:14 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Your post tells us how well the economy is doing under Bush.

The military is actually having to compete with (horrors!) the private sector to get people hired.

Way to go President Bush. Labor shortage due to a great economy!

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you're willing to admit the military does legitimately need volunteers.

This seems to be a point of contention for some. I've got a feeling they're not quite as confident as they claim, though.

Broken Glass Can 08-11-2005 12:20 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
At least you're willing to admit the military does legitimately need volunteers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I admit it. If we tried to wage WWII using only volunteers (no draft), we would have had a miserable time.

Just because people have the free choice to choose their jobs (and face it, the military doesn't pay a lot) we have to compete to get employees for military jobs, just as a company has to actively recruit new employees.

WWII was a good cause, despite the need for a draft, and the war against terror is a good cause despite the need to actively recruit soldiers.

And we are all benefiting from Bush's great economy.

jaxmike 08-18-2005 10:54 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who supports the Iraq War, but doesn't feel obligated to enlist because "I'm not needed."

I'll transfer someone $250 on Party or Stars if they can satisfactorilly demonstrate that they went to their local army recruiter, tried to enlist, but we're turned away because the military has no need for new volunteers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I support the war, and I am not going to enlist.

In America, people are FREE to make decisions (for now, and for the most part). I chose not to join the military. See how that works?

DVaut1 08-18-2005 11:02 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
I support the war, and I am not going to enlist.

In America, people are FREE to make decisions (for now, and for the most part). I chose not to join the military. See how that works?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, somehow, though it's complicated, I see how that works.

But you're a hypocrite for not enlisting, if you're going to simultaneously support the war.

As I said numerous times in the thread that accompanied this, you're not legally mandated, nor should you be legally mandated to enlist.

jaxmike 08-18-2005 11:19 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, somehow, though it's complicated, I see how that works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.

[ QUOTE ]
But you're a hypocrite for not enlisting, if you're going to simultaneously support the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. If you can actually support this, please do so.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said numerous times in the thread that accompanied this, you're not legally mandated, nor should you be legally mandated to enlist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how it should be.

08-18-2005 11:35 AM

Re: No caveat in your challenge about age is there?(n/m)
 
I went as turned away but how can I prove it to you. Let me know.

DVaut1 08-18-2005 01:01 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not at all. If you can actually support this, please do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I supported my claim here.

I had something like 40 posts in that thread and don't have much more to add.

natedogg 08-18-2005 11:26 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who supports the Iraq War,

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "supports the Iraq War".

natedogg

BCPVP 08-18-2005 11:45 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
Here's a question for you, DVault. Has the U.S. military turned down anyone who was willing and able to serve on the basis of not needing volunteers? I can't think of a time. So your premise that the military is suddenly starving for volunteers is misleading because the military is always starving for more volunteers.

Now could you hop on down from your high horse and be done with the name-calling?

DVaut1 08-19-2005 07:44 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a question for you, DVault. Has the U.S. military turned down anyone who was willing and able to serve on the basis of not needing volunteers? I can't think of a time. So your premise that the military is suddenly starving for volunteers is misleading because the military is always starving for more volunteers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, and let's just assume it is, because I have no knowledge to the contrary - then the only implication is that you ought to be willing to go fight in any war that you also support; which is what I've been saying all along.

Also, if this is true, then read over the post q/q started about the army missing it's recruiting goals and see how many posters claimed they "weren't needed".

Sounds like we agree, they are needed.

[ QUOTE ]
Now could you hop on down from your high horse and be done with the name-calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It may be name-calling, but it's not name-calling without a purpose. War supporters should be reconsidering their support for the war, in light of the fact they're hypocrites.

Darryl_P 08-19-2005 08:01 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
Just an impartial observer here thinking out loud...

Is it not enough to pay taxes to avoid hypocrisy? By paying taxes you are paying their wages, expenses, supplies, etc. ie. helping to make it all happen. If that doesn't count as support then why not take it away and see if it makes a difference?

warlockjd 08-19-2005 08:03 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a question for you, DVault. Has the U.S. military turned down anyone who was willing and able to serve on the basis of not needing volunteers? I can't think of a time. So your premise that the military is suddenly starving for volunteers is misleading because the military is always starving for more volunteers.

Now could you hop on down from your high horse and be done with the name-calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this changes nothing.

The OP was in response to a few war supporters who claimed the armed forces did not need their support.

Your point that the armed forces 'always' need more support/manpower further helps the OP refute these claims.

jaxmike 08-19-2005 04:30 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not at all. If you can actually support this, please do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I supported my claim here.

I had something like 40 posts in that thread and don't have much more to add.

[/ QUOTE ]

You did no such thing. You did not prove that supporting the war and not enlisting is being hypocritical. That's like saying that if a woman supports abortion, but doesn't have one then she is being a hypocrit. And damnit that's as ignorant of a leap in logic as the one you are making. I don't expect you to understand.

jaxmike 08-19-2005 04:36 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]

No. It may be name-calling, but it's not name-calling without a purpose. War supporters should be reconsidering their support for the war, in light of the fact they're hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not hypocrites. Again, I do not expect you to be able to understand why.

08-19-2005 04:39 PM

Re: No caveat in your challenge about age is there?(n/m)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Changing your rules now are ya? Just because people found a loophole, your word is not good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey ConservoMax, go watch C-Span and get edujamacated. Hope you don't fail out of your econ major the first day.

08-19-2005 04:41 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just an impartial observer here thinking out loud...

Is it not enough to pay taxes to avoid hypocrisy? By paying taxes you are paying their wages, expenses, supplies, etc. ie. helping to make it all happen. If that doesn't count as support then why not take it away and see if it makes a difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull that ribbon off your gigantic SUV in the exurbs.

Now, that's a really bad argument, because everyone is required to pay taxes by law. You are not legally required to serve in the United States military.

DVaut1 08-19-2005 05:01 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that if a woman supports abortion, but doesn't have one then she is being a hypocrit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if someone supports legalized abortions, yet claims to be morally opposed to abortions - then yes, of course, they're hypocrites too. Please review the posts in the thread that I linked, which dealt with Ted Kennedy, abortion, and being a hypocrite.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect you to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by this you mean that you won't be trying to argue with me, I'll guess I'll just be left to wonder what deep, profound, and unfathomable arguments you would have made, had I only the capacity to understand.

O cruel Lord, why must you consistently send my intellectual superiors to torture me so? With their intentional misspellings of 'hypocrit' and purposefully poorly-written arguments, how I only wish You would give me the power to comprehend them...

08-19-2005 05:12 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that if a woman supports abortion, but doesn't have one then she is being a hypocrit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not the same. A woman having an abortion can handle it herself, and it's between her and her doctor. But a war involves multiple countries and millions of lives are at stake. To even compare the two shows what an ignoramus you are.

jaxmike 08-20-2005 02:18 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that if a woman supports abortion, but doesn't have one then she is being a hypocrit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not the same. A woman having an abortion can handle it herself, and it's between her and her doctor. But a war involves multiple countries and millions of lives are at stake. To even compare the two shows what an ignoramus you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think abortion is worse. With abortion, you murder a child that you never gave a choice to. In a war, at least in the current war the US is involved with, the soldiers CHOSE to be there.

Of course, this totally and completely destroys your pathetic idea.

jaxmike 08-20-2005 02:25 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that if a woman supports abortion, but doesn't have one then she is being a hypocrit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if someone supports legalized abortions, yet claims to be morally opposed to abortions - then yes, of course, they're hypocrites too. Please review the posts in the thread that I linked, which dealt with Ted Kennedy, abortion, and being a hypocrite.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect you to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by this you mean that you won't be trying to argue with me, I'll guess I'll just be left to wonder what deep, profound, and unfathomable arguments you would have made, had I only the capacity to understand.

O cruel Lord, why must you consistently send my intellectual superiors to torture me so? With their intentional misspellings of 'hypocrit' and purposefully poorly-written arguments, how I only wish You would give me the power to comprehend them...

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you do not have the capacity to understand. You still think its hypocritical to be for the war, yet not enlist. If only you could see past your own smug world view.

I am all for the people who volunteered for our military to do their JOB and fight this war. I CHOSE not to enlist, mainly because I had other more profitable paths I could choose from.

Clearly you do not support the war. I believe you think people who enlist are ignorant. To me that can be the only conclusion you could come to if you even approached rationality given your writings. I am glad that you have a voice, I really am. I am also glad that most people aren't like you. If they were, the US would still be a colony of England.

So, go ahead and fight for your cause, however misguided, uninformed, and grotesquely ignorant it may be. Thank God there are people to protect you from yourself.

BCPVP 08-20-2005 02:33 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
If that's true, and let's just assume it is, because I have no knowledge to the contrary - then the only implication is that you ought to be willing to go fight in any war that you also support; which is what I've been saying all along.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point of the question was to illustrate the ridiculousness of your contention that the military is in some special need of new recruits. The military has and will always need new recruits. Now is not any different.

[ QUOTE ]
No. It may be name-calling, but it's not name-calling without a purpose. War supporters should be reconsidering their support for the war, in light of the fact they're hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone should reconsider their support of any institution they support but don't actively take part in. See how stupid this is? (Clearly you don't, but you can't say I didn't give you a chance). I support the need of my village having a police and fire department, but I'm neither a fireman or a policeman. Why? Because that's not what I want to do with my life at this time. Being a soldier is no different. You may think it is, but that's because you want to disparage any war-supporter as a hypocrite and therefore not worth listening to. Your arrogance is unbecoming...

jaxmike 08-20-2005 02:36 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]

Everyone should reconsider their support of any institution they support but don't actively take part in. See how stupid this is? (Clearly you don't, but you can't say I didn't give you a chance). I support the need of my village having a police and fire department, but I'm neither a fireman or a policeman. Why? Because that's not what I want to do with my life at this time. Being a soldier is no different. You may think it is, but that's because you want to disparage any war-supporter as a hypocrite and therefore not worth listening to. Your arrogance is unbecoming...

[/ QUOTE ]

A good, and accurate analogy. Furthermore, I think your conclusion is dead on.

Rearden 08-20-2005 03:39 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
To the OP:
- As was previously pointed out there has quite possibly been no time frame within which the US military turned away otherwise qualified volunteers... why should they now with a war on? (you'll certainly get to keep your 250 dollars... unless someone knows a recruiter really well and can arrange some fake evidence)
- Calling those that are not currently serving in Iraq phonies, chicken hawks, etc. does nothing.... If you wish to place the burden of total commitment style support on to one party (in this case those that supported the war) why not be fair and give it to everyone. If you support environmentalism why arent you chained to a tree in Oregon? If you support peace why arent you in the Peace Corps currently? As you can/should obviously notice this becomes quite irrational. If the action in this case is meant to be a litmus test of "true" support... then I ask you personally why you are not over in Iraq with the Red Cross easing the suffering of this war in support of peace(judging by the time you've spent arguing this issue on an internet forum Im going to guess that you are not)... and if you choose to man up and answer this question, now that I have put the burden of action on you, please remember that we're only counting total support according to your logic... no donations or protests work against the same sort of morals test you attempt to impose upon those you are arguing against. (I also do doubt the Red Cross with turn you away due to them having a sufficient number of volunteers for a war zone [on this of course I must admit Im less sure than the US military turning people away]). Also take note of whatever cop out you may use and recognize that if it works for you in this case (even: "I dont want to be in physical danger" others are free to use it)... come on you chickenhippy. (Atleast in the Vietnam era protestors had balls and would go to jail or get police-owned for what they believe in... not just post on an internet board trying to put the job of action on the opposition... what have you done to really stop this war or help the people suffering in it OP?)
-An additional issue in this case is the volunteer nature of the armed forces at present. No individual is being taken unwillingly into the military system (in some sense there is a backdoor draft.. stop loss, etc which retains some still in service). However individuals signing up for the armed forces are making the (hopefully) well thought out decision that it is the choice for them. Every soldier from reservist to careerist ought to recognize the nature of US deployments post 9/11 and that today, and throughout American history, an individual soldiers support of an individual war only matters in so far as their vote as a citizen (you accept a job and the responsibility [also please note accept... the burdens of morality come into play in a forced draft which is why Ill admit stop loss scares me] that you may well be posted in harms way in a dangerous, unpopular, and perhaps not well thought out conflict. If you feel an obligation to serve or if the reservist money is just "too good for 2 weekends a a month etc etc" you sign up... if not... you stay home. I respect them for putting their lives on the line. I also wish that every war they would ever fight (though even better I wish they wouldnt have to fight) would be a "good war" with crystal clear rights and wrongs, motives, widespread popular support while doing something actually tangibly defending the homeland and making the world a better place. However, whether war or peace time, and though in my mind in a job atleast on par in terms of courage and risk on par with policeman and firefighters, military service is... like those jobs... an individuals choice at present (the big reason why recruiter misrepresentation and sheer lying is a huge evil) and just as the two other occupations mentioned have little to no control over where they wish to risk their lives and for what specifically (firefighters have died rescuing house pets :-/) it is a job they choose to assume. Until the situation totally changes, ie until and unless there is a draft, it's a reach that because one supporter of the war sits here in the states another man is forcibly conscripted to service to take his place (this I think is the part of the core of your arguement... Im sure there are countless soliders there [Iraq} against the war, I just hope that after their time is over they still feel their choice to join and accept risk is a good one) Yes, I feel bad for a mother/family who had a family member die over there... I wish it never happened... but their loved one willfully joined the service and in doing so assumed the implied risk that everyone in a uniform takes in the sense that they may someday be called upon to fight a nasty war in a nasty place under some nasty pretenses (or perhaps a conflict they personally do not support).
-OP I agree with you however on another key statement I think you are trying to make... that the military is in dire need of recruits (though I think they always want soldiers). Today more than ever it is more difficult to hit their targets. Anyone who is not able to understand the pentagon's own estimates and press releases on their shortfalls in recruiting and to recognize that fact is likey not worth an arguement and really shouldnt be posting in any forum at all... except OOT.
-To the guy who said something about the Bush economy and the military racing against the private sector: Please note the base pay for enlisted persons and then tell me it should be a walkaway... barring some huge recession or a large, and IMHO well deserved, pay increase the military has been and will always be a hard sell even solely in terms of basic financial reasons. It is not a testament to the Bush economy nor was it to the Clinton economy in the 90s (and though recruiting shortages are now than the 90s please dont argue that its because the economy is stronger... not only is the accuracy of such a statement highly questionable (stupid dot com boom... now everyone expects insane growth) but the more likely answer isn't terribly pro Bush... its because there's actually a "hot" conflict going on... why join now if you're in it for economic reasons?) but rather it is a testament to how we shortchange servicemen/women (if reviewed on the economic reasons alone the military likely wont be a large favorite... factor in risk... time abroad and you can see why even being a reservist throughout history has been risky.
- To the guy with the frat guy like avatar (that I assume is a self portrait... popped collar?) who also claims to have caught his girlfriend with another girl and then posted the results over in OOT.. didn't you also claim that tonight you were promised a threesome? if youre not lying on that then please take my advice and log off and get some (or else you'll have to wait until your frat semi after homecoming for a piece :-()... I enjoyed you more when your posts had solid content... if only a flimsy story about finding your girlfriend macking it without you.

Addition: Me personally... assuming the above is all read (laf) individuals may ask why I myself, a Republican though not a hardcore Bushite (McCain 2008), and of service age, am not in the Armed Forces. The answer is simple; though after 9/11 I intended to enlist and was given acceptance into West Point I could sadly not attend due to medical concerns (I think theres another post on here by me explaining what specifically). I can of course prove this. I wished to enlist because my family has maintained a long tradition of public service (atleast one individual in every major conflict since the war of 1812 with the sole exception of my father, Vietnam,... a hippy who spent more than a few nights in jail due to protesting and then joined the peace corps to back up what he believed in) I felt it was my time to step up... since that area was denied to me Im just enjoying college while pondering another way to pay for what I have now in terms of service to my country (hope the state dept still needs Chinese interp skills when I graduate :-)). I supported and still support the war in Iraq and our troops there. If there was any way I would be allowed to serve currently I would indeed join.

warlockjd 08-20-2005 05:32 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if someone supports legalized abortions, yet claims to be morally opposed to abortions - then yes, of course, they're hypocrites too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fallacious. Those that do not think morality should be legislated but personally would not have an abortion fall in this camp.

Similarly, men who think it is a woman's choice, while advising their wife/girlfriend against it but ulitmately letting her choose.

Darryl_P 08-20-2005 06:09 AM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
The law doesn't require everyone to pay taxes, only those who make money in certain ways and spend it in certain ways.

I could live as a hermit in the wilderness, hunt my own food or bum off of other people and I wouldn't pay a red cent in taxes, all legally of course. Heck, I'd probably be eligible for some free money from the gov't if I am clever in the application process.

Or I could choose to work a modest amount in a reasonable comfortable job and pay a modest amount of taxes.

Or I could choose a high stress job in which I earn a lot and pay a lot of taxes.

Which one I choose (and which one everyone else chooses) makes a big difference for the armed forces. If everyone chose to be a hermit or have a low stress job with modest wages then under current tax laws there would not be enough revenue for the government to run a strong military.

IMO It is wise for everyone to respect the source from which his income and livelihood are derived, and the military is no exception.

[Edited to add this part]

Besides, if a good army General could choose between me signing up for the army myself, or continuing to work at what I'm good at producing enough tax revenue to pay for 3 soldiers who are younger, stronger, and faster than I am, then which do you think he would choose? And if you say there are not enough applicants, raise the salaries and make the benefits better and you'll still be able to get two for the price of one.

It's just basic economics.

08-21-2005 02:04 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
And if you say there are not enough applicants, raise the salaries and make the benefits better and you'll still be able to get two for the price of one.



[/ QUOTE ]

They've been trying this for months and it hasn't worked.

DVaut1 08-21-2005 04:33 PM

Re: An Open Challenge
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am all for the people who volunteered for our military to do their JOB and fight this war. I CHOSE not to enlist, mainly because I had other more profitable paths I could choose from.

[/ QUOTE ]

In which case, I think you're a hypocrite.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you do not support the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't support it enough to go fight in it; that much is clear.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you think people who enlist are ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Where did this come from?

Either way, no - I don't think that. I think they're consistent. They're willing to a war they believe in. Kudos to them; I don't know if I would have such courage. It's certainly difficult to make sacrifices and risk your life for a cause you believe in. They have ideals, and they fight for them. I have respect for that.

I'm not sure it's true to say I support them, either; if I really supported them, I would go fight along side of them.

But I don't think they're ignorant at all.

[ QUOTE ]
To me that can be the only conclusion you could come to if you even approached rationality given your writings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understood this correctly, then no, I think there are other conclusions you could rationally come to.

[ QUOTE ]
I am glad that you have a voice, I really am.

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree, I am also glad I have a voice.

[ QUOTE ]
I am also glad that most people aren't like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife frequently says that she wishes our kids don't end up like me (we don't have any children yet, but she's critical of all the time I spend idling away on the computer, playing poker, etc. - and she would like our kids to be much more active than I am); so on this point, I would say you have allies.

[ QUOTE ]
If they were, the US would still be a colony of England.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, maybe. Having not been alive at the time, it's difficult to say whether or not I'd have been willing to fight against Britain during the Revolution.

[ QUOTE ]
So, go ahead and fight for your cause, however misguided, uninformed, and grotesquely ignorant it may be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least I have your permission now.

[ QUOTE ]
Thank God there are people to protect you from yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually don't really understand this part. Is someone actively protecting me...from myself? I don't get it, honestly.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.