« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Reid Impugns Judicial Nominee Henry Saad Based On Confidential FBI Report »

Shooting the messenger

One of the most contemptible techniques in debating is the "ad hominem" attack, where you simply ignore the substance of your opponent's argument and attack them personally. You bypass the issue by bringing up alleged their alleged hypocrisy in holding their position, their credibility, their motives, anything that will discredit them -- without addressing the points they raise.

It's been used a bit around these parts recently. Greg used it here when "Rufus T. Firefly" said some things about scientology he didn't like. And it really drew them out when I posted this piece, bringing heaps of scorn from s9 and frameone. And let's not forget that hardy perennial, joser, who makes that technique his calling card.

I realized a long time ago that when someone resorts to attacking the person, it's because they don't feel they can successfully refute the argument. Their only way to win is to convert the discussion to being about the other person, and pummel them that way. It took me a while, but I finally realized that when it's used, it's an admission of failure and I have won the argument.

So thank you, frameone, joser, and s9. Every time you try to turn the discussions here into my personal shortcomings, failings, and other issues, I take it to mean you have no other way to counter my points.

(A personal note to those three and their supporters is in the extended section.)

OK, I'm going to answer your "questions" about my lack of military service once and only once. I'm already regretting playing along with your insipid little tactic.

The reasons I have never volunteered for service, and never would, are as follows:

1) I am severely out of shape.

2) I have a bad ankle, bad knees, a bad hip, bad eyes, and I'm developing early stages of arthritis in my hands.

3) I have another medical condition that requires several-times-daily attention and medication. Without that, I would sicken in days, be incapacitated within a week, and dead shortly thereafter.

With all those problems, I would be a tremendous liability in any battlefield conditions. With all those problems, if there still is any way I could be of service in a national emergency, I would unhesitatingly volunteer. But I know that there is no way in hell I could be acceptable, so I don't even bother.

But let's look at what you dipshits laughingly call "reasoning." Because I never served in the military, nor ever sought to, I have absolutely no standing to discuss matters of national security. That's quite possibly the dumbest thing you could possibly espouse, and that's saying a lot for a despicable collection of guttersnipes as yourselves.

By that standard, Bill Clinton had no business being president (let alone defeating two decorated World War II heroes for the office), let alone sending the U.S. military into places such as Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, or... um, wait a minute. I might have to reconsider this one.

No, that's making the same mistake as you assholes. I'm not arguing the position, but the person. Bill Clinton had every right to do those actions. Their correctness is certainly debatable (at the very least), but his authority to do so is unquestionable.

A better example would be Franklin Delano Roosevelt. By your logic (trying SO hard not to laugh while I type this), he had no business running for president. Or, at the very least, he should have resigned when war became imminent so someone ready, willing, and able to fight personally could lead the nation.

I'm sorely tempted to ban the lot of you just to protect my blood pressure, but I am loath to do such a thing on general principles. And besides, whenever I see you going after me instead of my arguments, it's a fresh reminder that every time you engage me instead of my points is an acknowledgement of your impotence to actually face me on the issues.

You see, it's not all about me. And I don't know why you keep trying to make it so.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shooting the messenger:

» Iowa Voice linked with Friday Blog Round-Up

» Crystal Clear linked with Crystal Clear Round the Reader

» Win WOW Now! linked with Chickenhawk Angst

Comments (51)

Jay Tea writes: B... (Below threshold)
a9:

Jay Tea writes: But let's look at what you dipshits laughingly call "reasoning." Because I never served in the military, nor ever sought to, I have absolutely no standing to discuss matters of national security.

That isn't what I said, so I don't know why you chose to direct your ire at me. Having a bit of a crisis of confidence, are you? Don't blame me for your perceived inadequacies— they aren't my perceptions anyway.

If you like, I'll repeat my actual point, so you can address the point I'm making, rather than the stupid strawman you're constructing in its place. Just ask.

Actually, it may be a good ... (Below threshold)
Sabba Hillel:

Actually, it may be a good idea to keep them around. The increased heart rate and breathing would actully be the equivalent of cardiopulmonary exercise. Isn't that what people get on a treadmill for in the first place. Here you are doing the same thing without having to go to the gym.

Hey, "a9," Jay Tea didn't e... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Hey, "a9," Jay Tea didn't even mention you.

----------------------

Jay Tea, if it matters, the same group writes the same thing in the same process for the same reasons to and about everyone else. The only problem I ever have with any of it, other than having to do a lot of scrolling, is that they tend to multiply. A toe hold here, access there, suddenly you find that one has become three, has become five, has become...

It can chase others away because like you conclude (as I do) that theirs is an exercise in futility (also can wear others down over time, which is what I also think the objective is), you, others of similar mind tend to stop participating. Next thing you know, the only ones participating are those using the personal attacks and not discussing anything.

On the other hand, Kevin and you and at times past, Paul, seem to know well when to make changes so I'd just say, follow your instincts. Hope you have a nice day, by the way.

Jay, I agree with you compl... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Jay, I agree with you completely. Having said that, has Paul read this post?

Jay: No ban; just keep them... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Jay: No ban; just keep them in the sunlight where they will wither.

Well, I for one agree that ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, I for one agree that the chickenhawk argument is stupid. I've never served in the military, but I sure have opinions about how it should be used. I supported Afghanistan invasion, so I guess that makes me a chickenhawk too. In any case my opinions and criticisms are directed at the politicians who decide what military endeavors to undertake. As I have not served I would not presume to be familiar with the inner workings of the military, nor its day to day operations, and thus am always quite hesitant to voice any opinions about the soldiers and officers themselves.

What personal attacks? What... (Below threshold)
frameone:

What personal attacks? What name calling? What argument are you talking about? You claim that your failure to even approach an Army recruiting station to volunteer to serve in Iraq in no way undermines your right to speak out in support of the war. I said repeatedly that on this point, you are correct. You have every right to say whatever you want about the war and its worth. But your failure to even TRY to enlist gives me every right and reason to suspect the sincerity of your stated convictions. Or do I not have the right to question your words when there are no discernable actions to back them up?

Take the example of Colorado State Treasurer Mike Coffman, a Republican, who just resigned from his position to re-enlist in the Marines. There's a man whose views I can respect and value without question because he walks the walk. He puts his values into action. I don't support the war in Iraq but I respect Coffman's convictions and service. Interestingly, enough, I don't think support for a war has anything to do with serving in the military. It has to do with service to one's country. As I said in previous posts, I don't have the freaking guts to serve in the military. Much like you I'd like to think that I would offer my own life in defense of my country but I don't have any illusions about it. In my case it's all still hypotheticals and romantic thinking so I refrain from loud words and talk about war and service and death with honor. You on the other hand seem to want your cake and eat it to.

Coffman saw that the Army and the Marines were failing to meet their recruitment quotas and he did something about it at great personal sacrifice and risk. He set an example for others to follow. You on, the other hand, argue in support of the war but instead give every reason why you can't or don't have to enlist. Toward whom should I direct my praise and toward whom my scorn or at the very least doubt?

What's fascinating is that in none of your posts about this issue do even mention that the Army and the Marines are facing a potential recruitment crisis. Nowhere do you mention that the Guard has raised their minimun age from 35 to 38. Nowhere do you even mention that Army recruiters have been suspended for covering up felony convictions and drug test results to meet their quotas. These insitutions that you claim to so highly respect and support are in trouble. But you argued that it would be a waste of their time and your own to even walk into a recruiting station to offer your services.

Then you turn around and argue that illegal immigration from Mexico may constitute an act of war. But do you say that if it come to war with Mexico you'll sign up? No. You don't. Let's say your post gains traction and the meme of war with Mexico becomes a political reality. Would you sign up then for a war you may have helped to start? Would you? I won't put words in your mouth. It's for you and you conscience to decide. Which is what I have said all along, adding only that if you decide not to serve you owe your readers a far more open and honest explanation than your self-diagnonis of your own physical fitness and another description of your family tree.

Jay Tea...I think by keepin... (Below threshold)
Zsa Zsa:

Jay Tea...I think by keeping a joser type on your blog gives character to your site. You are so funny with your come backs and it shines a certain light on how bitter and ridiculous they are!...One of the other Golden Rules I like is " Be ye kind one to another" I know it can be rather difficult at times when dealing with a joser...But just keep your chin up ...You are awesome, so there!

No, seriously, has Paul rea... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

No, seriously, has Paul read this post?!

^^ I'm wondering that as we... (Below threshold)
mantis:

^^ I'm wondering that as well. Ad hominem seems to be Paul's stock in trade.

Jay Tea , WILLisms.com has ... (Below threshold)
Zsa Zsa:

Jay Tea , WILLisms.com has a great Quotational Quote with George Washington today! It is a must read for this particular post!...I think you will enjoy it! Thanks! Bye for now...

I just read the rest of you... (Below threshold)
frameone:

I just read the rest of your post. You've got to be kidding me. Here's a few choice quotes:

"a despicable collection of guttersnipes"
"you assholes"
"I'm sorely tempted to ban the lot of you"
"your impotence"
"You see, it's not all about me. And I don't know why you keep trying to make it so."

Glad to see that reason has been your chosen response.

As I note above, you are clearly establishing a nice strawman to batter here when you suggest that I said you have no right or qualifications to speak about military matters. Go back and check my posts. I'm sorry about your physical condition but let's face it, in posts such as your argument for war against Mexico you go well beyond supporting the troops and move straight into a brazen williningness to put men and women in harms way for reasons that are quite frankly beyond me. FDR and Clinton are poor examples here because neither one of them sought war before it sought them. They are indeed proof of my own point that if one has never served and one does not have a military background it always best to approach war with grave caution and deep humility. To take the example of another President, it is not painfully clear that Bush decided to go to war while he was still telling the American people that he hadn't yet made up his mind (see the recent British intelligence memo, which I dare say I have not yet seen you address here). That is not humility, that is arrogance.
Time and again you and others at this site have blazed straight past more admiral qualities and characterisitcs proceeding straight to calls for blood while never once offering your own to the cause.

Let me ask you this. If you can;t serve, why have you not yet asked any of your ablebodied readers to help the Army and Marines as they face this recruiting crisis? Why instead have you argued, implicitly, that they need not serve ever without fear of shame or guilt?

That should read "it is NOW... (Below threshold)
frameone:

That should read "it is NOW painfully clear painfully clear that Bush decided to go to war while he was still telling the American people that he hadn't yet made up his mind"

-S- writes: Hey, ... (Below threshold)
s9:

-S- writes: Hey, "a9," Jay Tea didn't even mention you.

Typographical flames now? Good grief. There is no depth too deep, is there?

Meanwhile, the point I have been making all along has not changed, and it continues to remain unchallenged. Instead, there has been much frivolity with the construction and knocking down of strawmen. Are we feeling a little inadequate here, in the rear, with the gear, and all the cold beer? Hmmm?

I doubt that the people mak... (Below threshold)

I doubt that the people making the "chickenhawk" argument would truly want military men exclusively to decide our nation's military policy. But that's the implication, whether they know it or not.

Why would anyone feel, you ... (Below threshold)
Zsa Zsa:

Why would anyone feel, you or anyone else, should attempt to ask anyone to serve in the armed forces?
That is a personal decision... It is very clear this individual has some real issues! He wants to alter the intensity of the conversation to create a interference between his own ego! His desire to argue with you is more than a debate. It is more of an attention defect within himself. It just so happens that you were the one he took it out on! It could have been anyone! Who knows who will be next on hos list?...

Jay Tea:I totally ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Jay Tea:

I totally agree with you on this. Military service isnt required for someone to have an opinion, or a right to speak that opinion.

The people who went after you personally were using a weak, and transparent, tactic. Not only that, but the attacks were pretty low class as well.

So I agree with the overall intent of this post Jay, but I have to admit that the name calling you included didn't really strengthen your point.

The word "guttersnipe", however, is an instant new favorite. lol

frameone,why is it... (Below threshold)
hobgoblin:

frameone,

why is it hypocritical to advocate that others do something you are not capable (by temperment or physicality) of doing yourself.

I advocate young men go out for football. They can get seriously hurt doing so. I was too small and slow to play as a kid (so I wrestled).

Does that mean It's hypocritical for me to advocate football for young men?

That's ridiculous.

People who go into the military are competent adults with free will. The purpose of the military is combat. In combat, some die. many more find glory, honor and sacrifice that are ennobling beyond teh ken of non-combatants.

How is either advocating such a choice or advocating the use of a force that exists solely for the purpose of combat?

I'm not a doctor, either, but does that mean I'm to stay silent in issues of medical coverage and medicine in general?

What a logically unsupportable arguemnt. We have faculties that allow us to perceive and understand things outside of our direct experience. It's really quite foolish to insist that anyone's personal situation is relevant to a reasoned debate on any topic.

If your argument is that JT doesn't "know" what war is like, and thus he cannot assess the true weight of military decisions, I would submit that doing something as cursory as watching a few damn (modern) war movies gives a good enough perspective on the sacrifices of war to give a reasonable basis for discussion.

I assume that JT has done more than that much inquiry into the horrors of war.

You are ultimately denying the ability to reason abstractly.

Right on!... (Below threshold)
robert:

Right on!

Jay, I think you should go ... (Below threshold)

Jay, I think you should go straight to the nearest recruiting office and waste their time and resources until they summarily reject you, then have them send the bill for the physical and the time wasted filling out paperwork to frameone - because I don't want anymore of my taxes wasted to please one person who can't understand a point.

Hmmm."Let me ask y... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

"Let me ask you this. If you can;t serve, why have you not yet asked any of your ablebodied readers to help the Army and Marines as they face this recruiting crisis? Why instead have you argued, implicitly, that they need not serve ever without fear of shame or guilt?"

Well "frameone". Did you serve?

Will Franklin writes... (Below threshold)
s9:

Will Franklin writes: I doubt that the people making the "chickenhawk" argument would truly want military men exclusively to decide our nation's military policy. But that's the implication, whether they know it or not.

That may be what you're inferring. It's not what I'm implying. I know what I'm implying as well as what I'm saying. The reason I'm not saying it, just implying it, is that I'm struggling to remain polite.

frameoneBy your lo... (Below threshold)
sue:

frameone

By your logic (if you support the war and President Bush you should enlist in the armed services) then you should support the following statement, because the logic is the same.

If you don't support the war, don't support President Bush and what the goals of the United States are then you should leave the country. Find some country where you can support the president (or dictator). If you don't you're a coward and a hypocrite.

Liberals who advocate that any one that supports the war should enlist are doing so in an attempt to embarrass conservatives. Instead it shows that they are unable to grasp reason and grasp what an illogical statement and belief that is.

frameone, didn't you volunt... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

frameone, didn't you volunteer to go to Iraq as a human shield? If not, why not? It appears that by your own argument, you have a moral duty to do so.

Screw 'em Jay. Remember, yo... (Below threshold)

Screw 'em Jay. Remember, you're only as big as the insect that you let piss you off.

Well, my opinion (for what ... (Below threshold)

Well, my opinion (for what little it will count in the grand scheme of things) is that you keep the moronic putzes around. That being said, never deign them with a response ever again, be it a post to the main blog, or a response in the comments sections. That way, they can provide their cute little dances of idiocy for our entertainment, but never have the satisfaction of getting under your skin.

Your post, while being inordinately entertaining, and a remarkably well-constructed counterflame, showed the twits that they succeeded at their attempts in annoying you. While I know you had to vent your own opinion, and make some attempt at a personal defense, sometimes simply remaining silent is all one needs to say. This is something people like the one to whom you are referring nee to learn.

You have both the political right (by dint of the Constitution) and the personal/commercial right (by dint of your owning (assuming you do? Well, at least having posting access to) this webspace) to comment on whatever your little heart desires. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is a damned fool, and they are only proving that their beliefs cannot withstand yours being expressed.

frameone states..."FDR a... (Below threshold)
Mark Flacy:

frameone states...

"FDR and Clinton are poor examples here because neither one of them sought war before it sought them."

Oh? And how exactly did Serbia fit that assertion?

It's very convenient for Ja... (Below threshold)
frameone:

It's very convenient for Jay to suggest that I said he had no right speaking about military matters if he hadn't served because, in fact, I said no such thing. He can opine all he wants about the value of the war in Iraq or any other war. But first, why should I take him seriously and second, he and others here regularly go beyond supporting the troops and the war to argue in favor of starting yet more wars for which they will never have to make any real physical sacrifice. I give you Jay's recent post about why we should or could declare war on Mexico.

It's one thing to tell your kid to join a football team when you yourself cannot play, it's quite another to then raise a stink in the stands that the coach should choose a more offensive strategy that increases the likelyhood of injury. One is called support, the other is called, well, you could call it bloodlust, but most of us would call it what it is: trying to live vicariously through someone else. And, while we can understand it we don't applaud it. It can also be unforgivable, especially when we're talking about real blood and it ain't your blood on the line.

And no I have never served in the military. I signed up for selective service -- under protest -- when I turned 18 but I wouldn't dare suggest, as Jay did in his original post, that that means a damned thing. I have already stated that I would like to think that if it came to it I would sacrifice my life in defense of my country but until that moment comes, my pipe dreams of honor and glory don't mean shit. Why? Because frankly I don't have the gutys or the where with all to volunteer for combat. As I said previously. Which is one reason why I don't go around agitating for war and more war.

I would argue that the reason Jay deigned to respond to my and other comments is because they struck a very raw nerve. I would venture to guess that Jay has some very serious and complicated emotions wrapped up in this issue given his own inability to serve for valid health reasons but faced with a family history of service. I would also further venture to guess that rather than deal with these emotions honestly and directly he has decided the best thing to do is to yell a little louder about war.

So when Jay suggests that I have made personal attacks rather than address the substance of his argument I can only respond that one, I never resorted to the kind of name calling that he uses in his response and two, this is indeed a very personal issue and when Jay faces that fact squarely and honestly he'll be all the better for it.


I just want to say one last... (Below threshold)
frameone:

I just want to say one last thing and then I'll leave it alone. Presidents and politicians, whether they served in the military or not, are and should be held accountable for their decisions and most often they are. But again, no one ever said that failure to serve precludes one from commenting on or even ordering a nation to go to war. At least I didn't.

The substance of the argument as I understand it is whether or not it's justifiable for someone to advocate for war without ever having to pay any price or worry about any consequences for such advocacy. I am extremely uncomfortable with such behavior and always question the motives behind it. So should all of you.

-S- writes: Hey, "a9," J... (Below threshold)
-S-:

-S- writes: Hey, "a9," Jay Tea didn't even mention you.

Typographical flames now? Good grief. There is no depth too deep, is there?

Meanwhile, the point I have been making all along has not changed, and it continues to remain unchallenged. Instead, there has been much frivolity with the construction and knocking down of strawmen. Are we feeling a little inadequate here, in the rear, with the gear, and all the cold beer? Hmmm? ..Posted by: s9 at May 13, 2005 12:48 PM

-------------------

a9: that's got to be the most foul and insane thing I've yet to read anywhere on the internet.

Since your I.P.A. (nor anyone's) isn't displayed in conjunction with yours (or anyone's) comments, no one ELSE knows what's typographical or what isn't. There's a vast difference between "a9" and "s9" by about, oh, you know, many alpha and numerical characters, even in that dot/dot format.

It's tough, however, I realize, for those suffering narcissism, captured in the inability to comprehend that everything is just not about them.

Criticising Paul and Jay Te... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Criticising Paul and Jay Tea and even Kevin for writing on their own site and posing their individual site author requirements and opinions...well, the various users of issue here, as to that criticism, reminds me of someone who walks into someone else's house, rifles through their refrigerator, eats whatever and throws the rest out and then announces, "you don't have ANYthing good to eat!"

You know, it's someone else's site. Everyone else is just a visitor. Some people seem impervious to what the word, "guest" means and about etiquette related.

It's interesting when you suggest to the unwelcome guest that they might want to leave, that they become 'outraged': "the issue is that YOU don't have any good food here!" It's tough when you don't understand the personal boundaries of others, for sure.

I'm no English major, but... (Below threshold)

I'm no English major, but I read "That violation of the United States' sovereignty can easily be considered an act of war. Indeed, wars have started for far less, and the sanctity of a nation's borders is one of the major causes of wars" (5/8 "More Messing with Small Town Cops) as a statement of what could happen if Mexico were to get involved in Ramirez's case.

That's not an advocation for war, thats a statement of fact. If Mexico violates our sovereignty, that is an act of war by almost any standard. You're misreading the statement and jumping to the wrong conclusion about it. You cannot seriously tell me that in one of his later posts ("A Prelude to War?") with a statement like "I'm not calling for us to declare war on Mexico (yet), but if reminding Mexico of the ramifications of their actions is what it takes to get them to stop this invasion, so be it." is somehow the equivalent of him jumping up and down on his desk, spinning his tie around and yelling "WAR! WAARRRRRRRR!"?

Learn to read that he was being a bit snarky (if that is the right word for it), I doubt highly he would actively jockey for a war with Mexico.

Besides, it'd be the most one-sided ass-kicking humanity has ever seen. It'd almost be a waste of money to do so anyway.

I wish you guys would make ... (Below threshold)
frameone:

I wish you guys would make up your minds about when your being serious and when you ain't.

In one post Jay says that in case of invasion he would volunteer for the army without hesitation. I dare say he was serious and would add that I would do the same thing.

But then four days later it wasn't me who suggested that the United States was actually being invaded and that this invasion did indeed consitute an act of war. So why the qualified (yet)? Because Jay wasn't serious? Wasn't ready to volunteer? Or was he yet again casually throwing around war rhetoric -- during a time of actual war mind you -- because he never has to do anything about or face the consequences of his own words? Indeed, at his suggestion many follow-up posters did seem to be yelling for WAAAAAR! So you can see why I could get confused.

Hey, Jay Tea, don't take it... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Hey, Jay Tea, don't take it personally. frameone actually agreed with me on the pointlessness of the debate surrounding the "Communism vs. Nazism" blog that Kevin put up, then attacked me, implying that my choice of phrases somehow identified me as a closet Nazi (my term).

You see, we're all conservatives, which means we're all Evil and beyond redemption, and no matter what we say or how we say it, we're wrong and frameone, s9, joser (rhymes with loser) and others of their ilk will find fault with it. As someone else on this thread (and my mother) said "Ignore them and sooner or later they'll go away." Hard advice to follow, I know, but worthwhile nonetheless.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go catalogue my collection of Hitler bobble-head dolls.

Hmmm."frameone" ta... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

"frameone" take it from someone who served in the USMC infantry, your position is absurd.

In real life most of the people associated with war have almost nothing to do with the actual fighting. The vast majority of people who make wars actually work are not, and many have never been, in the military. The US military operates on a staggering ratio of non-combat vs combat troops. It takes a lot of work to keep combat troops operating. In the past this work was done by other soldiers, but now it's largely done by civilians.

Would your position apply to them? Even though they're not in the military, perhaps never having been in the military and yet are in Iraq and other dangerous areas?

Military service isn't needed to correctly argue political or military positions. Nor is military service a guarantee of competency in arguing political or military positions. General Clark is a former general and yet he's a complete incompetent jackass who nearly started a war between America/UK and Russia. Over a damn airfield in Serbia.

And I'll also point out that health issues are an important distinction when considering military service. Anyone who isn't absolutely in good health, mental and physical, and condition has no business entering military service. Boot camp can be a very painful experience for people not prepared for it. Take it from me. I went into Parris Island twenty pounds overweight because I slacked off with no need to train for football season. After I graduated from Parris Island I left 92 lbs lighter. And this is coming from a guy who worked on farms, lifted weights and played a lot of football.

And quite frankly I think I have to point out that registering with the Selective Service is required in case of a national emergency such as countering an invasion. And this "... I would like to think that if it came to it I would sacrifice my life in defense of my country ..." and yet objecting to registering with Selective Service illustrates some seriously muddy thinking. How on earth do you think you would be given the opportunity to "defense of my country" without registering? Were you thinking of just showing up a local base and shouting "take me!"?

Frankly the two widely differing positions are completely illogical. I'd suggest you review your views and make a serious effort to decide, once and for all, your positions about military service, Selective Service and defending this country. I'm sure you're sincere, but I think you need to devote some time to marshal your thoughts and come up with a more comprehensive viewpoint.

When I said that we were al... (Below threshold)
fatman:

When I said that we were all conservatives, I was referring to those of us who are routinely attacked by frameone, s9, joser (rhymes with loser) and others of their ilk (boy, I just love that word "ilk"). If I caused any confusion or bruised feelings, I apologize.

S...I love your comment on ... (Below threshold)
Zsa Zsa:

S...I love your comment on Guests! You are so right on target. BULLSEYE!

ummm ... guys, On ... (Below threshold)
BumperStickerist:

ummm ... guys,

On behalf of the United States Air Force let me point out that there's this whole other non-sweaty branch of he military service, the USAF.

The USAF requires that you run a mile and a half, in - iirc - something like 12 minutes, and do about 30 minutes of PT during basic training, which only lasts six weeks - and they pay you for your time -

you get out of Basic, go to technical training, do your job -- and you get paid the same as guys who have to go out and run 5 miles every day, march in formation after Basic, and otherwise be soldiers.

My DD214 shows a couple of tours in Korea, one at Ft. Meade, I qualify to join the VFW, and I got my mortgage through the VA. Unfortunately, I was in during the VEAP years, so the educational benefit sucked ... sucked a lot.

Anyway, volunteering to join the military doesn't necessarily mean offering to suit up and go shoot people. And, the USAF doesn't require that its Airmen lift and carry the airplanes to the airbase.

^^ Except the USAF is cutti... (Below threshold)
aasleka:

^^ Except the USAF is cutting 7,000 men in this round of base closures.

Being a file clerk in quiet... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Being a file clerk in quiet service to your country is a lot more honorable than not being a file clerk for your country while agitating for war and more war. AND BTW if you don't have to fight to serve why isn't everyone here signing up for non-combat jobs? Come on guys, no on here has yet to address the fact the Army and Marines are failing to meet their recrutiment quotas. If you're country doesn't need you now, then when?

And my whole bag against selective service was what is service without choice? It's the whole it's against the law not to sign up thing.

And yeah, I actually do agree with Fatman, maybe you should all just ignore me. It's hard to resist the urge to constantly set you lost lambs straight.

CollegePundit:L... (Below threshold)
ryan:

CollegePundit:

Learn to read that he was being a bit snarky (if that is the right word for it), I doubt highly he would actively jockey for a war with Mexico.

It may be the case that Jay was attempting to be somewhat funny, or entertaining, or over the top, or something. Maybe he was attempting to be shocking. How novel. But bringing up the idea of war in a case of illegal immigration is just ridiculous. The Mexican government might be taking a dipshit position by defending this person who obviously violated the immigration laws, but relating this case to an act of war? Come on. Don't you think that the US would help one of it's citizens abroad if they were caught in the same situation? I would think so.

ryan: But ... (Below threshold)

ryan:
But bringing up the idea of war in a case of illegal immigration is just ridiculous. The Mexican government might be taking a dipshit position by defending this person who obviously violated the immigration laws, but relating this case to an act of war? Come on. Don't you think that the US would help one of it's citizens abroad if they were caught in the same situation? I would think so.

You would be right, so long as that American citizen was not violating that country's immigration laws. Secondly, how would an American be committing an act of illegal immigration? There's only so far they could go north or south to do such a thing.

I don't think the United States could (or would) be so brazen as to openly advocate the violation of a country's immigration laws and sovereignty in such a way as paying for legal representation for an illegal American immigrant and then arguing that they should be able to violate their laws as often as they wish. That just defies common sense.

Hmm, let's see....... (Below threshold)
curious:

Hmm, let's see....

Frameone,

Since you seem to be so worried about the current state of our military strength #'s, and you've already admitted you don't have the guts to serve in a combat position, why aren't YOU signing up for one of those cushy desk jobs? Your country NEEDS you, right?
"Or do I not have the right to question your words when there are no discernable actions to back them up?" Why spend the time talking to Jay Tea about telling his readers to sign up. Cut out the middle man and head on down the the closest recruiting station!

"Why spend the time talking... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"Why spend the time talking to Jay Tea about telling his readers to sign up. Cut out the middle man and head on down the the closest recruiting station!"

Good lord what does it take for you guys to get it? How is my integrity impugned by my lack of service? I don't think the war on terror or the war in Iraq is a war to protect my freedom or yours. I have grave doubts about the need for the war in Iraq and so do most of the American people.

A volunteer military is a good way to gauge whether the public supports the wars started by various administrations. Clearly, the public ain't buying the Bush line that war in Iraq is of such vital national interest that joining the service is the duty of every able bodied person. Otherwise why the recruitment problem?

And yet Jay and so many other people here believe exactly the opposite, that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are VITAL to the defense of our own liberty here at home. Am I right or wrong about this? And yet what do they really do about it, those who are able bodied and have never served? Nothing except make excuses for why they shouldn't have to join the military. In my view, refusing to volunteer is actually a pretty good way to force the Bush administration to face the consequences of its unsustainable policies. Without the bodies in the field they can't continue their reckless foreign policy.

In that sense, refusing to volunteer IS AN ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH my beliefs about the Bush administration. Many Wizbang war supporters cannot make the same claim. Indeed, every able bodied supporter of this war that doesn't sign up is unwittingly helping the cause of those who oppose the war by forcing this administration to face the limits of its reach.

Come to think of it, glad you're all on board.

Peace

You guys are so right. Thos... (Below threshold)

You guys are so right. Those Liberals have to be punished for the whole failure of their 'multi-culturalism' - which as we all know is the root cause of the 09/11/2001.

Clearly if there can only be one culture in america - it must be the culture of the Veterans who have protected the nation. Or is the current crisis of faith merely a sign that there are liberals who want to allow the multi-culturalism of a civilian society where their 'anything goes' approach is tolerated in a time of war? You guys do believe we are more in a time of war than we had been when the civilian culture impeached the president while he had congressional authorization and funding to bomb iraq. You guys do agree that such not only offered aid and comfort to the enemy but was a direct cause of the 09/11/2001 follow up attack on the WTC.

Or is that also a part of the problem here.

We need to be [email protected] when it is cool, but not have to worry about the gory details if it's going to be too much of a bother.

faceone :<i... (Below threshold)

faceone :

A volunteer military is a good way to gauge whether the public supports the wars started by various administrations. Clearly, the public ain't buying the Bush line that war in Iraq is of such vital national interest that joining the service is the duty of every able bodied person. Otherwise why the recruitment problem?

Not entirely. Some people don't want to join the military because A) they don't want to get shot, or B) they're much too lazy to get behind a cause or do the hard work involved. You forget that many, many of this country's young people are apathetic because they're in this mindset that someone else (i.e., the government) will do it for them. Pay for health care, pay for education, deploy a bunch of schlubs to defend this country and fight terrorism, pay for everything under the sun and baby the bejeesus out of everyone.

Secondly, this war suffers from wall-to-wall partisan media coverage. You never, ever hear much good news coming out of Iraq from television networks and newspapers, and there certainly isn't a lack of it. If there was, blogs like Arthur Chrenkoff's would be in dire straits for anything remotely positive. The fact that he has almost thirty posts on good news roundups tells me that someone in the Media is (deliberately) asleep at the switch.

What does media coverage have to do with recruitment? Everything. Anyone watching the media's "IRAQI DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND DOOM WATCH 2005" is going to be very leery about joining the military when all they hear about is people dying left and right, and nigh anything else about it. It has been almost nothing but a clinical body count for the last two years, with an interruption of hand-wringing over the transfer of power earlier this year and their elections.

Nobody would want to join the cause if all they hear and believe to be true is that the entire situation is a quagmire and not the generally more positive, hey-our-boys-are-kicking-ass situation that it actually is. Not to make light of those who fought and died on our side for the cause of course, they're forever respected in my book, but it does a disservice to them to let the news media continually treat them as a statistic to be counted and not the heroes that they really are.

a national ID salute to our... (Below threshold)
tws:

a national ID salute to our glorious Chikenhawk leaders

CollegePundit:S... (Below threshold)
ryan:

CollegePundit:

Secondly, how would an American be committing an act of illegal immigration? There's only so far they could go north or south to do such a thing.

By staying in countries after their visas expire. One example is when Americans go to places like Australia and New Zealand and decide to stay and work there longer than they have permission. Granted, Americans arent flooding into those countries in large numbers, but these cases do occur.

I don't think the United States could (or would) be so brazen as to openly advocate the violation of a country's immigration laws and sovereignty in such a way as paying for legal representation for an illegal American immigrant and then arguing that they should be able to violate their laws as often as they wish. That just defies common sense.

I agree. I dont think that the United States would argue that a person should be able to break immigration laws. I'm perfectly fine with Mexico assisting one of its citizens, but the line of defense that they're going after really does defy common sense. Hence my calling it a "dipshit position".


On your first point, ryan... (Below threshold)

On your first point, ryan, touche - I hadn't thought about such a situation. Even if that is the case, they're usually removed from the situation and sent back, or are given an opportunity to apply for an extension or a permanent residence.

What makes that different from the illegal immigrants is that almost none of them apply legally, and instead get these jobs or welfare and send the money back to Mexico. Many even go so far as to falsify papers and acquire illegal IDs to avoid detection. What rubs a lot of people the wrong way about illegal immigration is that the illegals act as if this is some right of theirs to come over here and just do that. What makes it worse is the Mexican government is encouraging this illegal behavior because they don't want to deal with their economic problems themselves - they'd rather have their own countrymen enter our country illegally and hope they send money back so that their economy can be propped up for another decade or so.

This encouragement of illegal behavior gets right back to Jay Tea's point - the Mexican government does not respect our laws and, ergo, our sovereignty by encouraging and aiding illegal behavior. He brings up the point that a violation of any country's sovereignty is an act of war. This isn't just a dipshit position the Mexican government is taking by paying for this illegal's lawyer - it is a slap in the face of diplomacy and of our sovereignty. We shouldn't tolerate it at all, and definitely not when it violates our rights as a country.

Unfortunately, since no pol... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Unfortunately, since no politician of the left OR right is willing to risk alienating the Hispanic vote OR disrupting relations with our second largest foreign source of oil, nothing's going to be done about it.

TERM LIMITS NOW!!!

a national ID salute to our... (Below threshold)
Scott:

a national ID salute to our glorious Chikenhawk leaders

Posted by: tws at May 15, 2005 10:55 AM

What a waste of bandwidth.....




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy