Comments on: President Obama And His Hasan Problem–UPDATED

By: O Bloody Hell

O Bloody Hell — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:29:26 +0000

BTW, here's A link referring to one poor performance eval, it quotes the USA Today with a link.

By: O Bloody Hell

O Bloody Hell — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:01:42 +0000

> you are IGNORING this on PURPOSE, or you are just trolling.

You forget option ‘c’, “both of the above”.

> but I argue fairly

No you don’t fuster:

a) you get backed into a corner and you change the argument (like that whole “Bill of Rights” crap above, when the UCMJ clearly applies, not the BoR).

b) you make shit up out of whole cloth.

c) you ignore facts readily available when you make claims solely in order to make your opponent waste time refuting your BS, instead of dealing with the real fuzzy or debatable part about the issues (see also the UCMJ-vs-BoR issue for this).

There are other examples of how you don’t argue fairly — with an intention of making an honest case for a point of view — but those three alone are adequately damning.

You’ve probably never argued “fairly” in your entire life. I’ve yet to notice you doing it in comments here.

> If at any time you actually know something and convince me of it, I’ll be shocked

I’ll be shocked, too — downright flabbergasted, in fact — since that would show more open-mindedness than I’ve ever seen you show any sign of.

> Read your link, but didn’t see anything about write-ups. Got anything about that or anything else more substantial.

The link was rather obviously not about the write-ups, it was about the quote made in the same comment. But hey, let’s not try and hide the fact that that’s not relevant to your attempt to make the claim of the write-ups sound false.

A fair argument would have asked where the info about the write-ups could be found, not in an attempt to make them sound false by claiming they were supposed to be a part of that article, when no such claim had been suggested at any point by DaveR.

If you’re going to claim his quote was “a response to your request”, the requirement is that you should have repeated your request and THEN noted that they weren’t there in that link: “I asked you before for a link to information about the write ups. I didn’t see anything in that last link. Please defend your claim.”

Q.E.D. — you don’t argue fairly, and don’t even try.
You definitely understand debate tactics, which many don’t.

“Debate” is not the same as “fair argument”. In debate, you can often get away with outright lying.

In fair argument, getting away with it is in direct violation of the “fair” part, in which you should always work from a position of good faith, and stick to facts and statements you could prove or back up with citations even if you KNOW you won’t get called on them.

> The link was pretty much a story about a guy who complained about American policy being directed against Muslims.

Funny, looked to me like the link was about a fair number of people who saw this coming in terms of his anti-American rhetoric, along with a balance of “he was such a nice guy…” quotes.

By: fuster

fuster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:06:38 +0000

Read your link, but didn’t see anything about write-ups. Got anything about that or anything else more substantial.
The link was pretty much a story about a guy who complained about American policy being directed against Muslims. His complaints are a bunch of BS but not anything that sounded like he was more than a fool.
Where’s the stuff that you say made it incumbent on the military to give him the boot?

By: fuster

fuster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:30:13 +0000

Dave, I didn’t claim to know that stuff and I don’t troll.I scorn, mock and bust chops, but I argue fairly. I argue with you because I think that you’re wrong.
If at any time you actually know something and convince me of it, I’ll be shocked, but I’ll give you your due.
I’m going off to read your link and I’ll get back to you.

By: DaveR

DaveR — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:39:14 +0000

“Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates at the Maryland graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.”

You CLAIM in your posts you know this stuff, but either you are IGNORING this on PURPOSE, or you are just trolling. We’ll let everyone else decide. Switch that Muslim to Christian and he’d have been drummed out YEARS ago. You KNOW this, but keep pretending you don’t.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572986,00.html

By: fuster

fuster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:26:16 +0000

Haven’t seen either a first or second write-up.
If you have seen them, why haven’t you posted a link?

By: DaveR

DaveR — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:35:43 +0000

You still can’t understand fussy – and it’s because you don’t want to.

If his name was Bob Smith and he was a Christian – he would have been processed for Dishonorable discharge after the 2nd write up, especially for what he was written up for. Because he was a professed Muslim with a Muslim sounding name he was shipped off to Ft. Hood instead of Dishonorably Discharged. Because the ever encroaching PC’ing of the Military by the likes of the ACLU and Libs.

You’ll notice if he “really” wanted out, he didn’t run to Canada did he? Because you can’t just “quit” the military, you go to JAIL for that because you’re under a legally bound contract. Being in the Military isn’t like working for IBM or Costco or 7-Eleven, you can’t just say you quit. And because of the PC’ness of the world today, they didn’t discharge him WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE (if he were any other white guy BUT a Muslim).

Do you get it now? Have I used small enough words for you? You’re being a troll, as usual. I know Democrats personally, that are wondering why this guy wasn’t discharge 2+ years ago for what he did, and I have to explain it to them to, and they actually GET IT. That’s what this story is about…./sigh. (And I know YOU get it too, you’re just being a troll)

By: fuster

fuster — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:23:02 +0000

No, Daver, what did the guy do that was in violation of either law or his obligation that should have caused his expulsion?
It’s not up to me to say anything unless you can offer something that that remotely shows that political correctness prevented his expulsion.
You’re being ridiculous in insisting that a contract that was and remains voidable by agreement prevented his leaving the military while holding that he should have been cashiered.
What did he do, Dave, or don’t you have anything solid?

By: DaveR

DaveR — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:00:39 +0000

And it’s clear fuster that you have NO idea what it means when you sign up for the military – enlisted OR officer. It’s a LEGALLY binding contract that you VOLUNTEER for. But the Military leadership, because of the ACLU, is AFRAID to uphold the UCMJ and enforce it because of the continued THREAT of lawsuits – whether those lawsuits are baseless or not. That’s the Liberal PC ideas infecting even the military. I saw it back in the 80’s when I was in.

And since YOU keep calling for it, you go first. Facts to back up YOUR claims?

By: fuster

fuster — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:05:39 +0000

No, Daver, I’m not changing the subject. I’m responding to your idea that somehow what you call liberal political correctness is responsible for the Major’s continued military service.
This idea, beside being idiotically counterfactual as the guy was trying to resign his commission and was not allowed to do so, runs into the further point that there wasn’t any Constitutionally allowable reason for forcing him out.
Can you back up your claim with some factual and legal ground for expelling him prior to his flipping out?