Reverend_Hellh0und

Well gee tell that to my unit who had to do mock jumps cause thier was no training money.

Tell that to all those they forced out due to retirement.

Tell that to all those working on those bases that were brac'd

Tell that to the 4k+ who died from who knows what during Klintions 1st 4 years.

Total Quality Airforce was not an increase on spending on personnel....

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

Hatuey

Prove me wrong or go home?

Do you know what an ad hom is?

An ad hom is when you attack a persons character while ignoring the issue. This entire conversation is about Jones's character so it only seems fair that I attack Jones's character. Fact of the matter is that not even die hard neo-con fans consider her to be genuine. She's a fraud. Prove me wrong or just admit you like every neo-con who calls Clinton a rapist like to open mouth and insert foot.

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

Iriemon

Don't know how the training budgets actually ended up, I'll take your word for it. The fact that Clinton proposed increasing the training budget does not mean that his proposal was accepted or implemented; lots of interests I'm sure would rather have the budget for the hi-tech toys and screw the troops.

I am questioning your assertion training cuts were Clinton's fault.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Reverend_Hellh0und

***Yawn*** Will you promise to remember this next time you try to call me a neo-con?

1. Close the fvcking border and deport illegals.

2. Spend and spend is as bad as tax and spend.

3. Marriage belongs to the people not government, If you want to marry an eggplant, give me $500 and I'll marry you to one.

4. When fighting a war we should be fighting a war, not pussyfooting around a country which we could dominate and be overwith if we dropped the sensetivity crap.

5. Coporate welfare is as bad as personal welfare

6. The Constitution limits government not defines marriage.

7. Bush is an average, not great president. and not a conservative.


Need I go on?



Yes


Incorrect:

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.



You called me a "fvcking joke and a "neocon" then proceeded as person B does so above.



That my friend is what an Ad Hominen attack is. Textbook.


Thank you, Come again.

Iriemon

I agree that an ad hom is an attack on the person; but I disagree it is necessary a logical fallacy if the target has put his own credibility on the line.

For example, poster Rush makes asserts X as a fact.
Rush is putting using his own credibility as the basis for the fact.
If Rush has a history of making false, biased assertions of fact, is it a fallacy to challenge the validity of the fact on the basis that Rush has regularly been unreliable in the past?

It is different if Rush writes: Reuters reports X, and then gives his opinion based upon that report. Now Rush is not putting his own credibility at issue, and an attack on him would be a ad hom fallacy.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Iriemon? That sounds like pot smoker talk.

Pot smokers are drug abusers

Drug abusers lie cheat and steal.


Therefore you have no credibility....




See how your logic just failed? (this was an example, for I have no idea if you are a drug user)

Hatuey

Reading what a conservative is on Wiki won't get you off the hook.

I don't think so.

Ah yes stupidity at it's best.

1. You claim that Paula Jones is a rape victim.
2. I claim she's a gold digging slut based on the fact that she posed nude for Penthouse not long after she was "raped".
3. You claim many rape victims do this to "empower" themselves.
4. I asked for evidence. You supplied none.
5. I posted evidence she'd done it for money.
6. I posted evidence that even die hard Neo-Cons consider her to be a fraud who was obviously trying to get some money.

My attack was never used to say your claim was false. The FACTS I posted were.

Your claim :

My rebuttal :

Your claim wasn't proven false by my attack. It was proven false by FACTS.

It would have been an ad hom I had completely ignored your claim but I didn't. I proved them wrong through FACTS not insults.

Iriemon

I agree the analysis is a step above the simplistic.

This is not a fallacy of irrelevant ad hominem, but a fallacy of making stereotypical generalizations based upon false presumptions. It is not at all analogous to my example.

If you were to assert as a fact that "Pot smokers are drug dealers" and I attacked you for making a false assertion by noting that you regularly write false BS, that would be an ad hom but not necessarily irrelevant, since you have put your credibility at issue by asserting the fact. You could remove your credibility as an issue by referring to a source for the assertion -- then your source's credibility would be at issue.

No, I don't.

Reverend_Hellh0und

So I can tell you I am a Consitutional origionalist, a Libertarian, and personally a Conservative and you will accuse me of going to Wiki?


Troll much?




So then tell the Good Reverend how he, Fallacy: Ad Hominem , and the litteray community are wrong.

what the actual definition of ad hominen or your contrived sophomoric personal definition.


History of accusations should make one go hmmm....

Yeah those rape victim bitches deserved what they get wearing those slutty clothes......


Nice attitude hautey..... You are sick, sir.




http://www.ithappenedtoalexa.org/expect.html
http://www.iupui.edu/~sldweb/caps/_A...ess8-10-07.doc
Alliance: Factsheets: Myths and Facts


ptsd2001.html


So now you want to bad mouth rape victims some more?



Maybe, but attacking some poor woman who may have beed raped to protectr your hero with a HISTORY of abuses towards women makes one wonder about you.






Perhaps you need a refresher course in English 101. THe Good Reverend in neither interested or so inclined to hold your hand through logical fallacies...

Lerxst

I was in the Army under Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the military, and I can tell you that we had the same issues. We rarely had training money for fuel or ammunition and we were a mechanized unit designated to deploy to Germany to fight the Soviets! What you experienced was not specific to the Clinton era military. Again however I will point out that Clinton made no bones about cutting the defense budget, he did it. He also increased the focus on technology as a force multiplier. Clinton wholeheartedly took hold of the concept of "The New American Way of War" and pushed it. It started in the 80's under Reagan, which is why we were seeing cutbacks in training and relatively anemic pay increases. Money was being pumped into new weapons systems and R&D. New fast forward to Clinton's term in office. The Soviet Union is now history, we don't need such a large military force, hell we can no longer justify it. Realizing that we needed to maintain a strong edge militarily while decreasing overall size Clinton accelerates technology programs specifically with regard to communications. The military that GWB went to war with was a product of Bill Clinton's defense program. The military of Operation Iraqi Freedom was decidedly more advanced and certainly more capable than the military that fought in Desert Storm.
Clinton budget proposes $10 billion for Defense IT operations.
Clinton's Military Legacy.
THE CLINTON BUDGET: THE MILITARY; A Little More Money for Weapons and Repairs.
The New American Way of War.
Adapting to the New American Way of War: Postmaneuver Security Operations.

My point to all of this is that Clinton faced some very tough and unpopular decisions. The Army and Marines specifically disliked him because he paid too much attention to the Air Force and Navy in regards to how future wars would be fought and won. They specifically held to a logic that they could project enough force through air power that they could simply pound our enemies into submission and require less ground combat. That meant less American casualties. If you look at Kosovo and the Gulf War you will see that the Air Force really dressed those conflicts up and used them as justification for their vision of the New American Way of War. The Army and Marine Corps disagreed because they knew you simply could not fight small wars with airpower alone or even using it as the main weapons platform. The Air Force generals and Navy Commanders came as close to embracing Clinton as anyone could have...nonetheless they didn't like him in general because he was after all cutting funding. He just put more emphasis on technologies that gave rise to an immediate focus on improving technology based defense programs. This went against traditional military thinking, and the Pentagon was chock full of Reagen era military commanders who were, you guessed it...traditionalists.
That rollback started during the Reagan years...I saw it happen.
Maybe Kosovo had something to do with it? Somalia? I don't know.

Because many of them didn't really get the bigger picture. I know, I served under Clinton too. I know what was said and I bought into it. I despised the man for perceived injustices he committed against my military. Then I began studying what happened and why. And it made sense, as distasteful as it was.

__________________
I was so right. And you? Well you were so wrong. You lost. Ha. Ha.