Journal Timex's Journal: Just what we need... 31
I haven't had a lot of reason to liken Obama to Hitler, but this would be a step in that direction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
I really don't think we need another law enforcement agency at the Federal level. If Obama really wants to help in the fight against crime, he should focus on helping the individual states in funding their forces...
I honestly hope Obama doesn't win tomorrow. Really.
Difference in mandate ... (Score:2)
The military's mandate is to protect the nation through the projection of military force.
In other words, you shouldn't have to call the military out for things like domestic hurricane relief.
Also, you don't need the same sort of qualifications for civilian duty. Remember, Obama wants to be able to offer every student the chance for a higher education in return for service to their community and their country. This shouldn't be limited to military service. You'd have a large proportion of students who w
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'll go you one further. Reinstate the draft, you choose military or civilian option, do your duty, on with your life (assuming you don't get suckered into a career!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reinstate the draft, you choose military or civilian option, do your duty, on with your life
Shorter version of your plan: "fuck liberty."
Re: (Score:2)
So what is your reasoning, while being such a gun nut, supposedly wanting to protect your country's core and historic values, for avoiding volunteering for the military?
First, I am not a gun nut.
Second, volunteering for the military is a completely separate topic, not directly related to the topic under discussion.
Third, your attempt at ad hominem is rejected as logical fallacy.
Fail. Try again?
Re: (Score:2)
My points stand as before.
Your off-topic comments and ad hominems stand as before?
You think this makes you look ... not stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
If you would consult a dictionary, you would understand that my comments do stand.
Um. How could consulting a dictionary make me see that an off-topic argument is on-topic, or that an ad hominem argument is not a fallacy?
I was posting about the inherent theft of liberty involved in a draft. You then attacked me for your baseless belief that I "avoided military service." This is both ad hominem -- attacking me, instead of the point -- and off-topic, since it has nothing to do with the immorality of the draft. And it has nothing to do with definitions of words, which is the point of a d
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you do not understand what "off-topic" and "ad hominem" mean, so what you think is uninteresting.
You have to admit, though, the interesting part is wondering what he's on, to think stuff like that up... :D
You're right of course, Pudge-- there's no relation at all to the discussion at hand and the comments made by the AC... ...except that they are both being said in English, but even that may be debatable. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you served in the military, I would certainly stand corrected and promptly apologize.
Irrelevant. Whatever I have done is irrelevant. It's an obvious ad hominem logical fallacy for you to try to make a point of it, and it's off-topic too.
So, if you care to declare I erred
I did declare that. You committed several fallacies. You erred.
I will stand corrected.
You have been corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
You should learn to not pretend logical fallacies are legitimate points.
Re: (Score:2)
See, I WOULD, but I like the idea of getting opinions from people I might not even agree with once in a while (...even if they are wrong).
It would be better, if we could just mark messages "No AC"... (are you getting this, Pudge?)
Re: (Score:2)
The military's mandate is to protect the nation through the projection of military force.
In other words, you shouldn't have to call the military out for things like domestic hurricane relief.
The Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard is the Governor of the respective state. It happens that members of the National Guard are also reservists of the US Army-- in the former, they answer to their governor, the latter, they answer to the president. They know this going in. (A friend of mine was in the National Guard, and had explained to me that as an enlisted man going up for a promotion, he basically had to go before two boards: one for the Guards, one for the Army.)
Also, you don't need the same sort of qualifications for civilian duty.
It may be different in Canad
Re: (Score:2)
TOTALLY irrelevant to the topic at hand. The org. Obama is proposing is NOT a military or quasi-military organization. It's tasks would include such work as teaching, after-school care, work with the homeless, etc. Not military shit. This would give a community structure that would be better able to respond to local disasters, as well as a framework from which to draw volunteers and aid workers in the event of regional di
Re: (Score:2)
TOTALLY irrelevant to the topic at hand. The org. Obama is proposing is NOT a military or quasi-military organization. It's tasks would include such work as teaching, after-school care, work with the homeless, etc. Not military shit. This would give a community structure that would be better able to respond to local disasters, as well as a framework from which to draw volunteers and aid workers in the event of regional disasters, instead of using the military.
It most certainly IS relevant! Listen to the video again. Obama is talking about a national security force. Here: I'll even give you a word-for-word transcript, just in case you can't watch it wherever you happen to be:
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded...
I really think that you're so blinded by The One that you've completely missed the point of anything I've been saying about him. You've done-drunk the kool-aid.
Obama *IS* talking about a para-military group. He specifically stated that he thinks we should have a "national security force"
Re: (Score:2)
So, now that it's a blow-out for Obama, with more than twice the Electoral College votes than McCain, are you going to believe? Bad enough that pudge will probably start going on about how "REAL AMERICANS" voted in the majority for McCain, when the fact is that its' mostly old white farts whyo did. People over 65 are the ONLY age demographic that
Re: (Score:2)
So, now that it's a blow-out for Obama, with more than twice the Electoral College votes than McCain, are you going to believe?
Believing the polls just because that's the way the vote turned out doesn't justify the polls, any more than euthanasia justifies "cutting health care costs for the elderly". (It's coming. Watch for it. It doesn't affect you, in the Great White North.)
Bad enough that pudge will probably start going on about how "REAL AMERICANS" voted in the majority for McCain, when the fact is that its' mostly old white farts whyo did. People over 65 are the ONLY age demographic that voted more for McCain.
The big difference here is that Pudge is American, and therefore has a qualification to comment on the American election that you, quite simply, do not have. You don't hear Americans going on ad-nauseum about the elections up there, do you? No, you don't.
Re: (Score:1)
...qualification to comment on the American election that you, quite simply, do not have.
Well, to be honest, the US does tend to exhibit a disproportionate influence outside its borders, giving the effected populace a legitimate grievance. A kind of a "curb your dog" thing wouldn't be to much to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
There are nuances to the American election process that cannot be easily grokked by people who did not grow up with the liberties afforded by the US Constitution.
I realize that US policy affects other nations more often than other nations affect the US[1]. This doesn't mean that citizens of other nations are in a position to criticize the American process, one way or the other.
Thinking about it, there are likely more Americans that don't really understand the process [wikipedia.org] than there are those that do. (I provi
Re: (Score:1)
This doesn't mean that citizens of other nations are in a position to criticize the American process, one way or the other.
When it's strictly an internal matter I could agree, but if a certain process causes harm to me somewhere else, why wouldn't I have a right to make a statement that it should be corrected? If you expect respect for your borders, can't I expect the same? I am assuming that the government acts on the will of the people, so maybe I can see a point of speaking to the people instead of the g
Re: (Score:2)
When it's strictly an internal matter I could agree, but if a certain process causes harm to me somewhere else, why wouldn't I have a right to make a statement that it should be corrected?
When the election is being held, so long as it's (mostly) fair and (mostly) peaceful, it IS nobody else's business, and this election was exactly that. Yes, there were a few disturbances. Yes, there were some problems with people interfering in the rights of others to vote. By and large, these instances didn't greatly affect the outcome.
Whether a candidate is perceived to be problematic by someone outside of the American citizenry is not an American problem. The American people generally tend to avoid e
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Senator McCain had one
Gah. Stupid grammar. I meant to say "Even if Senator McCain had WON"...
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the military shouldn't be the go-to for national disaster relief, ending dependence on foreign oil, etc. Better funding for domestic police forces takes care of the disaster relief, better funding for the FBI for domestic t
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting Obama, word-for-word, just so we can refer to it:
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded...
Now...
the video does NOT say that Obama wants a military-style domestic police state. Nice way to take things out of context.
I'm interested in knowing how YOU interpret "just as powerful [as the military]" when used in the same breath as "national security force" without providing some form of arms, without providing something that the group however you wish to call it can use to perform its duties, whatever they may be. Bear in mind that the military forces have never been called upon to replace teachers, to play mentors, or any of the other things you alluded to as