RebelKev Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Gore is from Tennessee, not Alabama.

Bush is from Texas, but he deserted from Alabama.

A family friend pulled strings to get Gore into the Alabama National Guard, incorrectly assuming that his father's anti-war stance meant that he wouldn't want to go to Vietnam.

He started out in the Texas Nat'l Guard but transferred units to help with a campaign.

...where he promptly deserted?

Oddball Wrote:You were saying?

This:

Quote:You libs always talk about "Chickenhawks" but fail to address his many cabinet members that were in the service as if you are not going to get called on it. Well, as a Vet, I'm calling you out.

You still didn't do it.

Now, you want to talk about ALL Republicans, I am sure I can dig up some quotes of Democrats ALL for Bosnia, Kosovo, and the missile attacks that didn't serve.



.....and Senators and Congressmen aren't in his cabinet.

RebelKev Wrote:On another little rant.......We probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now had Clinton demanded Saddam live up to the treaty.

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60340-2004Jan6.html' target='_blank'>Oh really?</a>

RebelKev Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:You were saying?

This:

Quote:You libs always talk about "Chickenhawks" but fail to address his many cabinet members that were in the service as if you are not going to get called on it. Well, as a Vet, I'm calling you out.

You still didn't do it.

Now, you want to talk about ALL Republicans, I am sure I can dig up some quotes of Democrats ALL for Bosnia, Kosovo, and the missile attacks that didn't serve.



.....and Senators and Congressmen aren't in his cabinet.

I named his most high profile advisers, close associates and supporters. What exactly do you think are you calling me out on?

Oddball Wrote:I named his most high profile advisers, close associates and supporters. What exactly do you think are you calling me out on?

Really? All those congressmen and Senators "advise" the President? You have taken a government course haven't you? I am also in shock that you didn't name Powell. Oh well, that wouldn't fit your agenda.

As far as Rumsfeld is concerned, he was in college......like many others were concerned. Why is it that you call him out? How about Tom White?

Oddball Wrote:I named his most high profile advisers, close associates and supporters. What exactly do you think are you calling me out on?

Oh yeah, and no you didn't.

Hmmm, Bush, himself, his Vice President, his brother, Delay, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld...

LOL! By going round and round, you meant chasing your tail, didn't you?

Nothing better than chasing the tautological tail around and around and around. . .

I think the original point was:

Bush is a hypocrite about war.
He sends troops to die, but never served himself.

Now, in order to answer this argument, Kev, you must AVOID the temptation to start singling out every other Democratic transgression known to man. That is an ad hominem attack, sir, and fallacious reasoning by definition.

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)


Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.


References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80

When Democrats are speaking against a Republican.....it is ALWAYS necessary to introduce the hypocrisy of the Democrats to prove the partisan politics played by said Democrats.

RebelKev Wrote:When Democrats are speaking against a Republican.....it is ALWAYS necessary to introduce the hypocrisy of the Democrats to prove the partisan politics played by said Democrats.

So, you're saying that without ad hominem attacks you got nothing? :laugh:

Oddball Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:When Democrats are speaking against a Republican.....it is ALWAYS necessary to introduce the hypocrisy of the Democrats to prove the partisan politics played by said Democrats.

So, you're saying that without ad hominem attacks you got nothing? :laugh:

No, I am saying that you can't complain about something when your party is the same thing.

BTW, and Joe you're a history prof, is it feasible to talk about the present without talking about the past?

Oddball Wrote:How does that work now that we have a deserter leading the country in a unilateral (sorry Marshall Islands :wave: ), preemptive war?

unilateral? Is England, Spain, Italy, Japan, Poland, Australia and over 50 other countries, unilateral? it doesn't seem like it. But to you liberals, Russia, Germany, and the biggest schmucks of all, the French, count as unilateral.

LOL! Here is the list of the Coalition of the Coerced:

El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras
Kuwait
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola
Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga
Australia
Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy
Baltic States:
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Albania
Macedonia
Romania
Bulgaria
Turkey
Croatia
Slovenia
Eastern Europe
Ukraine

As Frank would say, "Who you jivin' with that cozmic debris?"

<span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:blue'>TONGA!!!</span></span></span>

How much "help" are we getting from those countries? I'll bet those Latvians are sending troops and cash at a rate that will send those terrorists threatening the world with WMD's scurrying for spider holes.

.....but uhhhhh, you did say it was unilateral. There support is all we need. We are fully capable of defending ourselves no matter what you liberals think.

Oddball Wrote:How much "help" are we getting from those countries? I'll bet those Latvians are sending troops and cash at a rate that will send those terrorists threatening the world with WMD's scurrying for spider holes.

every little bit counts. As RebelKev stated, you said it was unilateral. It's anything but. You can make fun of the fact that the marshall islands are helping, but you conveniently forget to mention the size of many of the other countries.

Also, Germany might start forgiving some of iraq's debt, which would be a huge boost.

Oddball Wrote:How much "help" are we getting from those countries?

Last time I checked, the Brits controlled Basra and the southern section. Poland controls a third. And did you just completely forget about the Italien soldiers that died?

I just don't get it.

I ask a logical question.

I get the same tu quoque fallacy. :bang:

Beyond Hooked on Logic, I don't know how to help you out of this morass, Kev. Sorry.

But I refuse to keep chasing your tail. You want it so bad, you chase it yourself. :roflol:

Take out the countries that are "helping" but provide no monetary or military aid. Then take out the countries that are in the "coalition" because the U.S. holds the key to their future membership in NATO. You know what you're mostly left with? Countries that we basically blackmailed in other ways. Oh, and England. What price will they pay for their involvement?

You know, the Cons are already making rumblings about dropping out of the U.N. (!!!) and ignorning the IMF warnings about our debt.

I say we just re-instate conscription and stop pretending we are this great lover of humanity.