(May 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The ad hominem tu quoque argument (mingled with a dash of red herring evasion) is a tacit admission of "guilty as charged" while still trying to run cover for the behavior by claiming persecution.

In the first place, these are recognized logical fallacies. Clinton's behavior can't be used to validate the behavior of W or Cheney.

In the second place, the tu quoque argument (once again) completely fails because the comparison isn't valid. Observe your own words:

what have i told you about using big words towards hillbillies?...it's rude and they don't understand..... you only proved your right to the rest of us.... not them

Quote:....Draft dodging coward? I assume you're talking about Bill Clinton...

Sorry, asswipe. Wrong draft-dodging coward.

Get your head out of your ass.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_...ckenha.htm

Quote:Vice President Dick Cheney used every trick he could to evade the draft and military service altogether during the Vietnam War. His evasion of service has significant ramifications in his execution of the Iraq War. Americans should demand more in their vice president.

There doesn't seem to be much that Cheney wouldn't do to avoid service in Vietnam. Cheney applied for and received four draft deferments for being a student at Casper College and University of Wyoming between 1963 and 1965. On August 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which greatly increased Cheney's chance of being drafted, but 22 days later, he married Lynne. At the time, married men were exempt from being drafted. Hence if student deferments were to become disallowed, his marriage might still decrease his chances of being drafted. But the war kept demanding more troops, and the number of people eligible for the draft rapidly expanded. On May 19, 1965, Cheney was reclassified with the most dangerous draft status. On July 28, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson announced that the number of people drafted would double. Then on October 26, 1965, the Selective Service announced that it would start drafting married men with no children. Married men with children were still exempt from the draft. Exactly nine months and two days later, Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. During the first trimester of Lynne's pregnancy, Cheney applied for and received another draft deferment. Altogether, Cheney finagled five draft deferments.

This isn't what Cheney recalled in 1989 during a Senate confirmation hearing to be secretary of defense to the first President Bush. Cheney was questioned about his failure to serve and responded, "I would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." Cheney admitted in the same year to a Washington Post reporter that he "had other priorities in the 60s than military service." Cheney said he had "other priorities" than military service, but many brave men from Cheney's hometown of Casper, Wyoming, such as Specialist 4 Richard Sweeney, Gunnery Sergeant Robert Grove, and Captain Carlton Holland, served instead of Cheney and died in Vietnam. Cheney was busy with his "other priorities" while supporting the war in which he was too lily-livered to fight.

Chickenhawkism is rampant among republicunts.

If you don't like "Chickenhawk" maybe you prefer "War Wimp?"

Quote:a war wimp as "someone who is all too willing to send others to war, but never got 'round to going himself".

(May 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: So I take it you're not going to answer the question in the original post then?

Fine. Are you ready to admit then that Cheney is lying as are all the Republicans who've repeated this Obama-lied-about-terrorism-after-Bin-Laden mantra?

Very well, moving on to your latest round of hey-man-both-sides-do-it-so-stop-picking-on-us. As we've reviewed previously, this is the last line of defense when conservatives get caught being corrupt, abusive, dishonest, etc. The ad hominem tu quoque argument (mingled with a dash of red herring evasion) is a tacit admission of "guilty as charged" while still trying to run cover for the behavior by claiming persecution.

In the first place, these are recognized logical fallacies. Clinton's behavior can't be used to validate the behavior of W or Cheney.

In the second place, the tu quoque argument (once again) completely fails because the comparison isn't valid. Observe your own words:

(May 18, 2013 at 5:27 pm)A Theist Wrote: Hypocrisy pretty much runs rampant on your side...Bill Clinton didn't cheer-lead for the Vietnam War but ...

But nothing. Stop right there.

1. Clinton dodged the draft during Vietnam.
2. Clinton didn't support the Vietnam war.
3. Ergo, Clinton was a conscientious objector to the War in Vietnam.

1. W Bush dodged the draft during Vietnam.
2. W Bush cheered on the war in Vietnam.
3. Ergo, Bush was a chicken hawk on the war in Vietnam.

The two are not analogous.

And here's where you try to prove that Kosovo was completely the same war as Vietnam. Good luck.

It's not Tu quoque if the hypocrisy fits, and it's a perfect fit for your side...and it does seem to be your favorite tactic to scream, "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!", whenever you're caught in your own hypocrisy...

Quote:But nothing. Stop right there.

But your leftwing kool aid drinking ass! No...You stop right there...W Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard and was Honorably discharged...aside from leftwing smear and leftwing conspiracy theories and rumor mongering there's no real proof that Bush ever tried to dodge the draft to stay out of Viet Nam...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._B...ontroversy

Quote:3. Clinton was a conscientious objector to the War in Vietnam.

Yeah, Clinton was a conscientious objector when it was his ass going to battle...but he had no conscientious objections to committing others in a war that we had no business being involved in, especially when it wasn't his ass in the line of fire...
Clinton served in nothing...he's a draft dodging coward who led and organized anti-war protests while attending Oxford in England, and while our soldiers were fighting in Viet Nam...Bill Clinton is a draft dodger who used 'Conscientious Objector' as a mask for his cowardice, and then sends troops into action in Kosovo as president when he didn't have the balls to serve in the military when he was called....hypocrisy

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

---

(May 18, 2013 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(May 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The ad hominem tu quoque argument (mingled with a dash of red herring evasion) is a tacit admission of "guilty as charged" while still trying to run cover for the behavior by claiming persecution.

In the first place, these are recognized logical fallacies. Clinton's behavior can't be used to validate the behavior of W or Cheney.

In the second place, the tu quoque argument (once again) completely fails because the comparison isn't valid. Observe your own words:

what have i told you about using big words towards hillbillies?...it's rude and they don't understand..... you only proved your right to the rest of us.... not them

Quote: you only proved your right to the rest of us

should be you're, instead of your...hillbilly....and he only proved that he's been indoctrinated by leftist smear propaganda and leftist rumor mongering...

(May 15, 2013 at 12:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Someone in the Obama administration or campaign actually stated, suggested or implied that Al Qaida, a decentralized terror conglomerate with independent cells working all over the world was now expected to fold up its tent because Bin Laden is dead?

Someone actually made that outrageously preposterous claim?

Did I miss it?

I kept waiting for someone to apply the standard theist playbook:

- Obama said it, but we lost the original documents and the translations are inaccurate.

- Obama said it, but spoke in a frequency that humans can't hear, so we just take it on faith that he said it.

- Obama said it, but he did so in private and anyone who heard it is long dead.

- Obama said it, and you can't prove he didn't!

(May 19, 2013 at 8:41 am)A Theist Wrote: It's not Tu quoque if the hypocrisy fits, and it's a perfect fit for your side...

1. Yeah, actually it really is still tu quoque. One persons wrong isn't made right by another person's wrong. Didn't anybody ever teach you that as a kid?
2. No, you have't caught anything. Just saying otherwise and acting as if you have proven something is called the bare assertion fallacy.

Quote:W Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard and was Honorably discharged...

Really, we're going to re-litigate this?

W Bush used his family's influence to get into the national guard so he could enjoy a safe, cushy assignment while avoiding the draft and having to go to Vietnam. This is not disputed by anyone. Even if he did serve and was not AWOL, it's beside the point. It still remains true that Bush cheered on the Vietnam War and then ran and hid in the National Guard.

Ergo, chickenhawk.

Quote:he had no conscientious objections to committing others in a war that we had no business being involved in, especially when it wasn't his ass in the line of fire...

Still waiting for you to prove that Kosovo = Vietnam.

You realize that not all wars are the same, right?

You realize that it's possible to protest one bad war and, in later years, advocate for another war and not be inconsistent, yes?

For example:
Our involvement in WWII: good
Our involvement in Vietnam: bad

So if someone were to ever hypothetically say to someone else "You were in favor of getting into WWII but now you're against the Vietnam War? You're contradicting yourself!" That would not be a valid argument because it's consistent to say "I'm in favor of our involvement in this war but not that war."

With me so far? I'm trying not to use big words per Crate's advice.

OK, so, going really slow here for you, let me map out first W's hypocrisy:

1. Person A cheered on war X
2. Person A wouldn't serve in war X
3. Ergo person A is a chicken hawk

Now, with your "both-sides-do-it" justification for W, Cheney, et al. and why it fails

1. Person B was against war X
2. Person B wouldn't serve in war X
3. Person B later advocated a different war, Y
4. Ergo it doesn't follow that person B is a chicken hawk.

Going back to my WWII/Vietnam contrast, it's not necessarily inconsistent to be in favor of one while being against another. Not all wars are the same.

Your challenge now, to repeat from my previous post which you ignored (just like how you twice ignored my main question from the OP) is to prove that Kosovo War = Vietnam War.

Good luck.

(May 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 18, 2013 at 3:53 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: That war was an enormous shit sandwich and I can hardly blame anyone for not wanting to take a big bite.

Fine but don't call for others to bite from it either.

The problem with Bush wasn't that he was a draft-dodger. The problem with Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, et al is that they cheered the Vietnam War while not wanting to fight in it.

Yep. Maybe you didn't catch the last little bit where I said his later actions were an entirely different story (i.e. fair game).

(May 19, 2013 at 10:55 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 8:41 am)A Theist Wrote: It's not Tu quoque if the hypocrisy fits, and it's a perfect fit for your side...

1. Yeah, actually it really is still tu quoque. One persons wrong isn't made right by another person's wrong. Didn't anybody ever teach you that as a kid?
2. No, you have't caught anything. Just saying otherwise and acting as if you have proven something is called the bare assertion fallacy.

Quote:W Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard and was Honorably discharged...

Really, we're going to re-litigate this?

W Bush used his family's influence to get into the national guard so he could enjoy a safe, cushy assignment while avoiding the draft and having to go to Vietnam. This is not disputed by anyone. Even if he did serve and was not AWOL, it's beside the point. It still remains true that Bush cheered on the Vietnam War and then ran and hid in the National Guard.

Ergo, chickenhawk.

Quote:he had no conscientious objections to committing others in a war that we had no business being involved in, especially when it wasn't his ass in the line of fire...

Still waiting for you to prove that Kosovo = Vietnam.

You realize that not all wars are the same, right?

You realize that it's possible to protest one bad war and, in later years, advocate for another war and not be inconsistent, yes?

For example:
Our involvement in WWII: good
Our involvement in Vietnam: bad

So if someone were to ever hypothetically say to someone else "You were in favor of getting into WWII but now you're against the Vietnam War? You're contradicting yourself!" That would not be a valid argument because it's consistent to say "I'm in favor of our involvement in this war but not that war."

With me so far? I'm trying not to use big words per Crate's advice.

OK, so, going really slow here for you, let me map out first W's hypocrisy:

1. Person A cheered on war X
2. Person A wouldn't serve in war X
3. Ergo person A is a chicken hawk

Now, with your "both-sides-do-it" justification for W, Cheney, et al. and why it fails

1. Person B was against war X
2. Person B wouldn't serve in war X
3. Person B later advocated a different war, Y
4. Ergo it doesn't follow that person B is a chicken hawk.

Going back to my WWII/Vietnam contrast, it's not necessarily inconsistent to be in favor of one while being against another. Not all wars are the same.

Your challenge now, to repeat from my previous post which you ignored (just like how you twice ignored my main question from the OP) is to prove that Kosovo War = Vietnam War.

Good luck.

Quote:Really, we're going to re-litigate this?

W Bush used his family's influence to get into the national guard so he could enjoy a safe, cushy assignment while avoiding the draft and having to go to Vietnam. This is not disputed by anyone. Even if he did serve and was not AWOL, it's beside the point. It still remains true that Bush cheered on the Vietnam War and then ran and hid in the National Guard.

Ergo, chickenhawk.

Yes...let's re-litigate this.

Other than repeating a smear effort and rumor mongering that was hatched by the DNC against Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign and posting a link to some leftist hack blog site, you've produced no evidence which actually proves that Bush joined the Air National Guard to avoid the draft...Nothing! Nada! All this leftwing tripe that you've been repeating has already been proven false in the past...Bush served in the Air National Guard and was 'Honorably Discharged'...now prove your bullshit with documentation and without posting links to politically partial and leftist hack sites...

Quote:I'm trying not to use big words per Crate's advice.

OK, so, going really slow here for you, let me map out first W's hypocrisy:

1. Person A cheered on war X
2. Person A wouldn't serve in war X
3. Ergo person A is a chicken hawk

Go as slow as you want...I know you have a hard time keeping up the pace when it comes to actually thinking...

1). Person A makes accusation against person X
2). Person A produces no actual evidence to support his claim against person X other than repeating smear and rumor mongering that was hatched by leftist hacks who hate person X
3). Hence Person A is full of shit.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...tory-lives

Quote:That's pretty much what I took away from the story too in February 2004: "Bush cut a few corners and was less than zealous about finishing his 6-year commitment. Given Bush's age, the tenor of the times, and the winding down of the Vietnam War, this is hardly noteworthy." In a nutshell, Bush pulled strings to get into the Guard and, in one way or another, messed up during his fourth year and pretty much disappeared. Nothing happened to him, though, because Vietnam was winding down, no one really cared that much about a superfluous pilot, and nobody wanted to make trouble for the son of a Republican Party bigshot anyway. It's hardly a laudable story, but frankly, it was never all that contemptible either. It was only a big deal because Bush eventually ran for office himself and felt like he had to cover up the failings of his youth.

So yes, dickhead, he was a phony cocksucker and has remained one his whole life. Probably the one thing the two of you have in common.

(May 20, 2013 at 8:42 am)A Theist Wrote: you've produced no evidence which actually proves that Bush joined the Air National Guard to avoid the draft...Nothing! Nada!

It's a point not disputed.

how the flying fuck did this argument get reduced to whether the red or the blue team has the most draft dodgers? fucking right wingers you have too give them credit they do know how to distract a populace