On 17 Jul 2007 22:54:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9970C0B3FD63Dfreddybear@216.151.153.41> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:qmdq9398gbulu32qkujb1fe63ak5mpnacb@4ax.com:

On 17 Jul 2007 20:54:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9970ACE56DE23freddybear@216.151.153.34> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:lopp93petsk8kfrtoj6a475c94i6b47u0r@4ax.com:

On 17 Jul 2007 15:33:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997076886DD26freddybear@216.151.153.48> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:i0jp93hum0lcst0tf72299o8skjb344ucl@4ax.com:

On 12 Jul 2007 21:14:07 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns996BB01D2A523freddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:acv993tklcuvekaja0jb3srbsu4peapi0k@4ax.com:

On 11 Jul 2007 15:33:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns996A7673AAD02freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote

in

news:crr993djbqiemb6lh22fcu0n02o9i640kv@4ax.com:

On 11 Jul 2007 14:30:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns996A6B4A2BED7freddybear@216.151.153.13> wrote:

Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>

wrote

in

news:f8i893tdi5ndkdorb72jc5ulguduosjgh9@4ax.com:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:30:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark
K.

Bilbo"

<gmail@com.mkbilbo> in <I5OdnQ-

r9qpK3QnbnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@giganews.com>

wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:41:06 +0000, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On 02 Jul 2007 23:42:21 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9961C92E868A9freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:SNmdnYDdg8cRHRTbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@io.com:

"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183414325.008753.120000

@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com..

.

Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote

So when are you going to Iraq, you fucking coward?

YOU aren't over there, hypocrite.

And HE thinks NOBODY should be over there, while YOU
keep

insisting

that Americans SHOULD be there.

That's too much for Fred to take in all at once. You
need to

break

up

your point into smaller pieces.

Of course, by the time you get to the last piece,
he'll have deliberatly forgotten the first.

I notice that you're not over there either, "Denis".

Did you notice that Denise and Yang oppose the war?

That one never seems to sink in with him. Somehow, don't
ask me

how,

people who oppose the war but don't sign up for it are

"hypocrites".

Makes *no* sense whatsoever but, there it is...

I guess it is an extension from their need to call Clinton
a

draft

dodger, though he publicly opposed the war, but to applaud
the

Repub

chickenhawks.

I guess it's a reaction to liberals who don't know an
ad-hominem argument.

*Mine* was not ad hom. And your response did not even rise
to the level of ad hom.

"Chickenhawk" is ad hom, by definition.

But *I* did not call you a chickenhawk.

You used the term, Matt.

Yes, I have. Not to refer to you, not ever. I have used it to
refer to Shrub and to plenty of others. But not to refer to you.
In the case of Shrub it is quite relevant: he worked to avoid
combat in a war he support, combat he was physically and,
supposedly, mentally able to do. It was not an issue of health
or sole support for his family or any such thing. It was simply
that he did not wish to risk his life, but supported others
serving and dying. That, that having "other priorities", makes
one a chickenhawk. Now if you were a healthy 20 year old I would
wonder about your the depth of your actual support for the war.
But I was not going to enquire and assumed that you had valid
reasons.

I presume that you agree with the general liberal position about
Vietnam, Matt.

I have my specific view, not anyone else's general one.

If that is the case, then advocating that anybody should
have volunteered to fight in that war, regardless of what you
think his position is or should have been, is hypocritical.

Sorry, but I have not advocated that anyone should have served, I
have said that supporting the war while working hard to avoid
personal risk is cowardly and hypocritical. The most moral view
was to oppose the war. But if someone thought that war was a good
thing, if that person was 18 and healthy, then that person should
have, at the least, let the draft work properly, and most
honorably, volunteered.

Bush volunteered.

For a position that would not put him in combat or even in country.
He volunteered for a position that was impossible to get in (see the
previous sentence for why) unless the person had lots of pull.

That claim has been refuted, Matt.

Nope, never, not even a little.

What you mean to say is that one
particular piece of evidence that nailed down the influence was
refuted. That is all.

To refute it you would need, for example, to
show that many people got in the guard then without pull. And since it
was known as the Dallas Cowboys refuge and since people were trying
very hard to get in to avoid service you will have a hard time doing
it. But even so, it is clear that he volunteered for a situation that
protected his drug taking *****.

Most
certainly he did not put himself in a position where he would have a
chance of fighting or risking his life.

Flying those jets was a risk at any time and in any country, Matt.

Which is why people spend tens of thousands of dollars for that risk.

Sorry, but that argument does not fly or even float. He got to ride
jets and look pretty for the girls in his suit. He did not get shot
at, he did not get jungle rot, he did not take an actual risk to help
his country.

Insisting on
taking a tiny piece of that position out of context will not
change my position.

BTW, I assume that you have abandoned your claim that I called you
a chickenhawk.

Would you be so kind as to point out precisely where I made that
claim?

It was your claim above. But I see that you are going to weasel out
of it instead. And here I was defending you. Oh well.

I can't weasel out of it, Matt. It's another of your strawmen.
Oh well.

As I said, I defended you and you have no qualms about ignoring that.

On 17 Jul 2007 20:54:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9970ACE56DE23freddybear@216.151.153.34> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:lopp93petsk8kfrtoj6a475c94i6b47u0r@4ax.com:

On 17 Jul 2007 15:33:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997076886DD26freddybear@216.151.153.48> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:i0jp93hum0lcst0tf72299o8skjb344ucl@4ax.com:

On 12 Jul 2007 21:14:07 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns996BB01D2A523freddybear@216.151.153.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:acv993tklcuvekaja0jb3srbsu4peapi0k@4ax.com:

On 11 Jul 2007 15:33:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns996A7673AAD02freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote

in

news:crr993djbqiemb6lh22fcu0n02o9i640kv@4ax.com:

On 11 Jul 2007 14:30:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns996A6B4A2BED7freddybear@216.151.153.13> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>

wrote

in

news:f8i893tdi5ndkdorb72jc5ulguduosjgh9@4ax.com:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:30:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K.

Bilbo"

<gmail@com.mkbilbo> in <I5OdnQ-

r9qpK3QnbnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@giganews.com>

wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:41:06 +0000, Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 02 Jul 2007 23:42:21 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9961C92E868A9freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:SNmdnYDdg8cRHRTbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@io.com:

"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183414325.008753.120000

@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com..

.

Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote

So when are you going to Iraq, you fucking coward?

YOU aren't over there, hypocrite.

And HE thinks NOBODY should be over there, while YOU keep

insisting

that Americans SHOULD be there.

That's too much for Fred to take in all at once. You need
to

break

up

your point into smaller pieces.

Of course, by the time you get to the last piece, he'll
have deliberatly forgotten the first.

I notice that you're not over there either, "Denis".

Did you notice that Denise and Yang oppose the war?

That one never seems to sink in with him. Somehow, don't ask
me

how,

people who oppose the war but don't sign up for it are

"hypocrites".

Makes *no* sense whatsoever but, there it is...

I guess it is an extension from their need to call Clinton a

draft

dodger, though he publicly opposed the war, but to applaud the

Repub

chickenhawks.

I guess it's a reaction to liberals who don't know an ad-hominem
argument.

*Mine* was not ad hom. And your response did not even rise to
the level of ad hom.

"Chickenhawk" is ad hom, by definition.

But *I* did not call you a chickenhawk.

You used the term, Matt.

Yes, I have. Not to refer to you, not ever. I have used it to refer
to Shrub and to plenty of others. But not to refer to you. In the
case of Shrub it is quite relevant: he worked to avoid combat in a
war he support, combat he was physically and, supposedly, mentally
able to do. It was not an issue of health or sole support for his
family or any such thing. It was simply that he did not wish to risk
his life, but supported others serving and dying. That, that having
"other priorities", makes one a chickenhawk. Now if you were a
healthy 20 year old I would wonder about your the depth of your
actual support for the war. But I was not going to enquire and
assumed that you had valid reasons.

I presume that you agree with the general liberal position about
Vietnam, Matt.

I have my specific view, not anyone else's general one.

If that is the case, then advocating that anybody should have
volunteered to fight in that war, regardless of what you think his
position is or should have been, is hypocritical.

Sorry, but I have not advocated that anyone should have served, I have
said that supporting the war while working hard to avoid personal risk
is cowardly and hypocritical. The most moral view was to oppose the
war. But if someone thought that war was a good thing, if that person
was 18 and healthy, then that person should have, at the least, let
the draft work properly, and most honorably, volunteered.

Bush volunteered.

For a position that would not put him in combat or even in country. He
volunteered for a position that was impossible to get in (see the
previous sentence for why) unless the person had lots of pull. Most
certainly he did not put himself in a position where he would have a
chance of fighting or risking his life.

Insisting on
taking a tiny piece of that position out of context will not change my
position.

BTW, I assume that you have abandoned your claim that I called you a
chickenhawk.

Would you be so kind as to point out precisely where I made that claim?

It was your claim above. But I see that you are going to weasel out of
it instead. And here I was defending you. Oh well.

So, hypocrite, put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is!

Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote

So when are you going to Iraq, you fucking coward?

YOU aren't over there, hypocrite.

And HE thinks NOBODY should be over there, while YOU
keep insisting that Americans SHOULD be there.

So, hypocrite, put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is!