- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Too smart for you own good. Oh well, I tried.
Too smart for you own good. Oh well, I tried.
He is too smart for your weak arguments, and tore them to pieces. Your are right, you tried, but not very well.
My points were right on target. It's silly to claim that the United States miltiary is a socialist orginization.
But, ya'll are so smart, that you can no longer be taught anything. No use wasting time on you anymore.
But you have yet to show how it is not, while others have shown that it does qualify under the definition of socialism. Here, you want to prove your point, post a definition of socialism, then show how the military does not fit that definition. That is the reverse of what has been done to you are your poor arguments.
Careful. He might ask you how long you've served in the military so he can assess whether or not you're an authority on socialism.
What you have stated so far, is that the military is not an aspect of socialism because you served in it. Is that about right?
Careful. He might ask you how long you've served in the military so he can assess whether or not you're an authority on socialism.
He also argued it's not socialism because COTUS allows it.
You might know something about Socialism, but obviously you know nothing about how the military works, nor why it works that way.
You need to check yourself, I never said that
The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to maintain a standing army. Providing food, housing and medial are important mechanics of maintaining a standing army. It would be rediculus, not to mention fool-hardy, not to insure that your fighting force is in good physical condition. That's why the miltiary isn't a social program.
That's right, the miltiary isn't a social program. How many social programs have you ever seen where you have to perform, or get your ass out? I don't know of any.
I love how you took my post out of context, but that's no surprise
Apparently you failed to realize that your argument has already been refuted.
I removed it from context by entirely quoting you. You straight up STATED that COTUS allows it and therefore it's not Socialism. Furthermore, when I challenged your argument, you did not reject the argument that because COTUS says so, it's not Socialism. And the rest of your post has nothing to do with actual performance. It has to do with maintaining a military from a logistical point of view.
You did in fact argue that because COTUS allows it, it's not Socialism.
The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to maintain a standing army. Providing food, housing and medial are important mechanics of maintaining a standing army. It would be rediculus, not to mention fool-hardy, not to insure that your fighting force is in good physical condition. That's why the miltiary isn't a social program.
And what has he said about the military that is factually incorrect? Just saying he has not served and so does not know everything about the military is not an argument.
That's a social program. It's not. You know that as well as I do.
What standard does the welfare class have to meet to stay on welfare?
Which has what to do with whether it is socialist or not? If the government owns a factory that makes aircraft, is it not socialist because it's not a social program?
Explain to us how the military social program works. Thanks in advance.
I don't see the word socialism in that paragraph. Who is that can't read? Hmm?
Which has what to do with whether it is socialist or not? If the government owns a factory that makes aircraft, is it not socialist because it's not a social program?
I like how you attack Hatuey on his post arguing you have no understand of socialism...and then prove him entirely correct.
Being or not being a social program is irrelevant as to whether or not something is socialism. Why you can't grasp this is somewhat perplexing. Under your argument, if the government controlled and manufactured steel for the country, that's not socialism because it's not a social program. Never mind how it entirely fits the necessary criteria of owning the means of production.
That's because you still don't understand socialism.
Doesn't change the fact you argued that because COTUS said so, it's not socialism.
And posting lame pictures doesn't compensate for awful debate skills.
Are you saying that the military only enlists the poor and under priviledged?
The military doesn't build aircraft. They don't build anything. They provide for the national security. No one is forced in, nor forced to stay.
Doesn't sound much like Socialism to me.
Annnnnnd, here's your failboat
The military doesn't produce steel. You folks are getting really rediculous.
You keep showing a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is. people have even quoted definitions of it here for you, and you still totally fail to understand. Posting lame photoshop images won't make you any less wrong in your understanding of what socialism is.
Are you saying that the military only enlists the poor and under priviledged?