DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:well in the Civil war era the rich used to pay the poor to take their place

because that wasn't a true draft, it was conscription. Bottom line is that the draft in the mid 20th century brought a huge amount of social understanding between blacks and whites, rural and urban, poor and not-so-poor, and might well have contributed to the overall noble policies that led to the rise of a strong middle class in the US, most of which policies have been dismantled by the GOP in recent years.

Wow! Just Wow.

beyond wow, your issue is?

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: And now Godwin's Law covers a reference to anything WWII era?!? As if claiming to be the Sheriff of Godwin wasn't lame enough already?

are you seriously this dense? no wait, don't answer that. yes you are.

Look for the word "German". it's there if you actually read. oh wait, no you don't read. you only pick out what you want to see and go completely ****.

But good luck digging your stupid ass out of this hole. Want the shovel, too?

Ferno, first, 'Godwin's Law' is simply a name for the probability that a debate on the Internet will eventually have some make an anology or direct comparison to nazi's or Hitler.

What we have here is something different, it is someone suggesting the attitudes toward Japanese and Germans entering the country during WWII would be different than 'xyz'...
I don't think raising that point constitutes anything unwarranted or hyperbolic. Do you?

Second, the 'law' is a prediction of probability of outcome....not a law against doing something! It like the 'law of gravity' not the law against hate speech...Lol.

You seem to have it wrong in more than one way.
Godwin's law was not proven out in this case and even if it was to have happened it doesn't mean the thread is over, or should be.
Context is always King in determining the meaning and intent of a comment.

Citing Godwin's law has become a crutch for weak participants in discussions. You have failed to impliment a stupid meme correctly. You suck at the Internet. There is probably pic I should post with that if I wanted some internet cred but that currency is worthless to me.

Conscription and draft are effectually the same thing, they are both compulsory service for the government. The only real difference is the draft is always military. While a conscript is primarily military

CUDA wrote:Conscription and draft are effectually the same thing, they are both compulsory service for the government. The only real difference is the draft is always military. While a conscript is primarily military

the Civil war conscription process in the North was a bit different than the modern draft, a fascinating set of circumstances for those that studied American history. Perhaps what one sees in the modern process is that the draft works well if the nation is solidly behind a military effort, and conversely, tempers situations(eg Vietnam) where such was not the case. At any rate, I do agree with the idea of abandoning the all-volunteer military. It has had negative affects upon both our conduct abroad, and a sort of segregation of militiary veterans(along with a feeling of some sort of special status to same within their ranks)from society as a whole. Oh, and to those who wonder who will stand up for a draft? Several US Congressmen/women have over the past decade, including Rangel from NY State, Dingell of Michigan and a couple of Republicans, as I recall. None lost their seats over the call, either, but none were able to build any groundswell of support.

Will Robinson wrote: Ferno, first, 'Godwin's Law' is simply a name for the probability that a debate on the Internet will eventually have some make an anology or direct comparison to nazi's or Hitler.

What we have here is something different, it is someone suggesting the attitudes toward Japanese and Germans entering the country during WWII would be different than 'xyz'...
I don't think raising that point constitutes anything unwarranted or hyperbolic. Do you?

Second, the 'law' is a prediction of probability of outcome....not a law against doing something! It like the 'law of gravity' not the law against hate speech...Lol.

You seem to have it wrong in more than one way.
Godwin's law was not proven out in this case and even if it was to have happened it doesn't mean the thread is over, or should be.
Context is always King in determining the meaning and intent of a comment.

Citing Godwin's law has become a crutch for weak participants in discussions. You have failed to impliment a stupid meme correctly. You suck at the Internet. There is probably pic I should post with that if I wanted some internet cred but that currency is worthless to me.

[removed]

Ferno, no one said Germany wasn't cited as a part of the analogy.

I'm simply telling you that your attempt to invoke the 'uber-thread-killing-'Godwins Law' was both incorrect and juvenile.

[removed]

Conscription is just another name for the draft, sure it worked differently before we had a system where everyone of a certain age had to sign up under penalty of law, before that the army had to go and gather up people. (amongst other differences, that are also meaningless)

The draft had not a thing to do with creating the middle class. (I thought your magic pill was taxes)

And we have plenty of institutions that do the job that the military did as far as the races are concerned, (work, school…etc) not to mention that nothing has changed there anyway.

Yea, and I see how wonderful the draft worked to avoid Korea and Vietnam. (or the nasty things done during those wars…cough…police actions.)

Argument = Null and Void

Spidey wrote:Conscription is just another name for the draft, sure it worked differently before we had a system where everyone of a certain age had to sign up under penalty of law, before that the army had to go and gather up people. (amongst other differences, that are also meaningless)

The draft had not a thing to do with creating the middle class. (I thought your magic pill was taxes)

the taxes were enacted and supported by a generation which had greater appreciation of the plight of those poorer, and the ability of folks from all walks of life to actually have intelligent give and take. Sure, I still say the tax code was the driver, but the folks that put it into place had a different interaction between social classes than in pre-war America.

And we have plenty of institutions that do the job that the military did as far as the races are concerned, (work, school…etc) not to mention that nothing has changed there anyway.

actually, a glance at recent history(last century) shows that the Army was ahead of the curve on race relations and even at the cutting edge of the gay rights thing, as well. If you think NOTHING has changed, you must be missing the nation that has changed from segregated restrooms and water fountains of my youth, to today. No one could argue that everything is where it needs to get, but to argue nothing having changed is both astounding and flat-out wrong.

Yea, and I see how wonderful the draft worked to avoid Korea and Vietnam. (or the nasty things done during those wars…cough…police actions.)

we'd still be in Vietnam today were it not for the pressures from the involvement of the general public due to the draft. Korea predates me, but seemed from what readings and interactions with vets that I've had, somewhat supported by the public(due to the anti-communist sentiment of the times). Not enough of a military strategist to say whether Korea was a needed effort. The problem with a volunteer force is that the violence is only inflicted on a very small percentage of the populace, and I've heard too many argue that 'this is what they signed up to do'. Perhaps the idea of a reluctant soldier isn't such a bad thing for a nation to have in place, as a check and balance.

No, I meant nothing has changed in that aspect of the military....jeezzzeee

Conscripted or volunteer...same difference in that regard.

..........

Conscription is pure evil, unless absolutely necessary, and should be eliminated from every country on the face of the earth, along with the idea that governments have the right to treat people like chess pieces.

Spidey wrote:No, I meant nothing has changed in that aspect of the military....jeezzzeee

Conscripted or volunteer...same difference in that regard.

I guess so, if you're in, you're in....the details of how you got there are immaterial. I think it was you who made the comment about the Northern Army(Army of Northern Aggression, as I was taught in my youth) basically came to town and rounded folks up in some cases. As I said, it's a fascinating story, all around. Everything from little citizen militias(per the original US plan), to forced conscription, to the volunteering of surrogates.Wild stuff.

..........

*starts humming the song "War Pigs"*

ThunderBunny wrote:

Better include Bush and Cheney in the "we are not at war with Islam" mantra.

[youtube]xKacGTJ6-W4[/youtube]


Transcript from Meet the Press of a video compilation of Bush/Cheney quotes compared to Obama quotes:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/m ... 15-n310606

BARACK OBAMA:
The parents do not speak for over a billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology.

GEORGE W. BUSH:
All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true face of Islam.

BARACK OBAMA:
We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.

DICK CHENEY:
This is, by no means, a war against Islam.

BARACK OBAMA:
I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.

GEORGE W. BUSH:
The face of terror is not the true face of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.

TC, it only counts if Obama says it.....didn't you get the memo?

That's a crushing blow right there TC, good work.

Remember now, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But religion kills people, not the actual terrorists themselves. Interesting logic.

callmeslick wrote:TC, it only counts if Obama says it.....didn't you get the memo?

So it seems. The double standard.

Howdy

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:TC, it only counts if Obama says it.....didn't you get the memo?

So it seems. The double standard.

And yet Bush brought war to millions of Muslims in two countries. Oh the dichotomy.

TC, don't let Z's adulation go to your head. You didn't deliver a 'crushing blow' because there is a stark difference in how the two sides are willing to address the islamic religious component at the root of the terror problem. You have suggested the symbolism both used is proof that both sides are on the same page. You ignore the reality of the situation which has a great deal of difference between the two sides.
Those who are trained to swallow symbolism and pretend it is substance are accustomed to pretending it tastes good and passing their compliments to the 'chef' even though the dish was quite empty.

Obama thinks he can walk on egg shells around public acknowledgement of the religious cultural connection. He believes his deference buys him respect from the terrorists.
Bush and Co. trampled right into it knowing they can't fool their way to a solution. They at least are smart enough to know you can't use campaign tactics to win the minds of a bunch of fundamentalists the way Obama can manipulate his constituents to support his agenda.

Where Obama makes those comments naively thinking he will gain support from them the Bush team made those comments as a qualifier to clarify their motives for boldly doing what needed to be done knowing it was bound to be labeled 'anti-Islam'.

Not even remotely the same. Z is lapping up an empty dish.

this administrations approach to the terror threat is kind of Harry Potter like "he who shall remain nameless"

CUDA wrote:this administrations approach to the terror threat is kind of Harry Potter like "he who shall remain nameless"

you would prefer they turn it into a religious war?

You don't understand that it is a religious war?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:this administrations approach to the terror threat is kind of Harry Potter like "he who shall remain nameless"

you would prefer they turn it into a religious war?

it IS a religious war, they have vowed to wipe every Jew off the face of the earth, plus they are slaughtering Christians by the truckload

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:this administrations approach to the terror threat is kind of Harry Potter like "he who shall remain nameless"

you would prefer they turn it into a religious war?

You would prefer people believed citing the religious authority that shapes their culture can not be a part of the discussion because the mere mention of it is a "war" on the religion?

Reminds me of the logic used to justify the bombing of the 'Muhammed cartoonists' shop. Way to go lending credence to their twisted interpretation of said religion!

Is it a religious war if only one side is fighting and they are predominantly killing those of their own faith? I guess that qualifies as a religious war, but not in the way you imbeciles think.

vision wrote:Is it a religious war if only one side is fighting and they are predominantly killing those of their own faith? I guess that qualifies as a religious war, but not in the way you imbeciles think.

you're right. ISIS is actually calling for Genocide against the Jews.

what you all need is someone with expertise on the region:

CUDA wrote:

vision wrote:Is it a religious war if only one side is fighting and they are predominantly killing those of their own faith? I guess that qualifies as a religious war, but not in the way you imbeciles think.

you're right. ISIS is actually calling for Genocide against the Jews.

And yet they seem to be killing a hell of a lot more Muslims than Jews thus far. So who's really in danger?

And refresh my memory, why are they killing those Muslims?
OH YA, it's because they dont have the same religious beliefs as them.
this is a relgious war. trying to change the name of it or pretending it something other than what it is, because you're either too stupid or too scared to admit it doesnt change that fact.

vision wrote:Is it a religious war if only one side is fighting and they are predominantly killing those of their own faith? I guess that qualifies as a religious war, but not in the way you imbeciles think.

Was it genocide and a religious war when Hitler killed the Jews? Or not because we didn't know about it?

callmeslick wrote:what you all need is someone with expertise on the region:

Ex-NBC Bureau Chief Backs Up O’Reilly’s Account of Falklands War Riot

yet, O'Reilly never worked at NBC, he worked at CBS, where several co-workers at the time refute his version of reality.

Always injecting a qualifier eh?

inject this:
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/mon ... /23922989/

Wow, someone who is willing to defend himself...means he's lying?:

"Fox News talk show host and political commentator Bill O'Reilly threatened to retaliate against a reporter "with everything I have" if he felt her coverage of his war-time reporting was inappropriate, the reporter said."

woodchip wrote:Was it genocide and a religious war when Hitler killed the Jews? Or not because we didn't know about it?

You might want to be careful where you are going with this since Hitler used a lot of Christianity in his rhetoric. Also, genocide =/= religious war. If you said genocide OR religious war that would make more sense in that context.

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8089639/ob ... t-syndrome


soon to be replaced(if not having been supplemented already) by Hillary derangement syndrome.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Was it genocide and a religious war when Hitler killed the Jews? Or not because we didn't know about it?

You might want to be careful where you are going with this since Hitler used a lot of Christianity in his rhetoric. Also, genocide =/= religious war. If you said genocide OR religious war that would make more sense in that context.

I combined the two as there was genocide and by any definition it was religious. While there may be contextual issues with it being christian in style, we all can see it was not a true holy crusade against the Jews, rather a genetic cleansing. The ISIS crowd is making it a religious war and that would be the difference.

Funny…the same people who will bend over backwards to disassociate terrorists with Islam, have little trouble associating Hitler with Christianity.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:TC, it only counts if Obama says it.....didn't you get the memo?

So it seems. The double standard.

And yet Bush brought war to millions of Muslims in two countries. Oh the dichotomy.

And thank you Bush for getting us into this mess in the first place. He's the one who's the most responsible for singlehandedly destabilizing an already barely stable region, which made the U.S. a big, fat target.

You want war with everyone in the Middle East? Grab yourself a gun and hop on over to Libya or Syria and start shooting every terrorist you see woody. You and all the other right wingers haven't come up with any other solution other than to say Obama's not doing the right thing. [personal shot removed] So what should Obama do, hmmmm? Start cheering for the draft and begin sending our young Americans by the thousands over there to kick ass, blow things up and die by the thousands, AGAIN. Or, find every willing and able Christian Warrior you can find and send them over there to fix things in the name of God like any good Holy Warrior would be willing to do out of flag waving love for God and country. If neither scenario is palatable to your patriotic tastes, wonderful, you've figured out what Obama has figured out, that the whole place is a quagmire and there's no good solution to fix it.