You remember the circular argument thingie. An appeal to authority is another form of a logical fallacy. It doesn't on its own make an argument. If you want I can list the six main logical fallacies for you. They are kind of helpful to know. And fun to watch most newscasters completely favor the fallacy because its more interesting.
Sound's to me like you need to send your evidence to CBS, DeSPURate. No one here is buying it.
Everyone related to his services says he completed it and was honorably discharged. You're the only person in the country, that I'm aware of, who is disputing that.
I swear you've got this automated responce. If I hit a nerve you switch into autopilot and switch back to partisan rhetoric. You're not very honest with yourself are you?
Honestly, you haven't hit a nerve. You're just talking about irrelevant bull .
I asked you the other night if the manual you were reading from were of '72 vintage. I asked if you could produce all the other relevant passages from the manual related to authorities and other leaves and early discharges and on and on and on.
You choose to keep your argument very narrow and focused on one cite, and that negates it. There is a body of law and regulations related to Air National Guard Service. I dare say it has evolved in 32 years. I also dare say you have no ing idea what the terms of service were in 1972.
The bottom line is, you've come up with an out of context passage and expect everyone to buy is as some evidence when, in fact, you haven't even demonstrated it is a rule that was in effect in 1972.
I could see your argument if I didn't also have the statement of understanding signed by Bush when he signed up. It not only is worded in exactly the same way as the analysis. It has the exact same requirements:
Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."
Jeeze! Deja vu...
o, are you not paying attention?"...unless excused therefrom by proper authority."
I have a do et saying who has authority to excuse someone form the required attendence:
Turns out to be the secretary of the air force.
(This message was left blank)
Are you saying that, with the connections Bush had, he couldn't have wrangled an excuse from the Secretary of the Air Force?
That's the angle I'd attack. Saying he didn't meet the requirements is a lost cause...go back to he's a privileged boy with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Oh yeah, the public doesn't care about that either.
I'm saying he didn't deserve it. That is all. Connections don't make it justified, plus we then have to go find that exception which would be even worse for Bush politically.
No, you've been saying he didn't complete his obligation to the Guard and wrongly received an honorable discharge.
C'mon get your story straight.
And, by all means, go find the exception. Look, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision....face it.
"Look, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision....face it."
If that argument holds true for me it does for you too.
But, I'm not trying to prove anything.
It's like you coming up to me and saying, "you're a liar now prove you're not!" It's silly.
For those of you interested, there's a nice overview of this issue available from the New York Times...
Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time
My overview:
WGAF?
:served
"the New York Times". Now there is a nice un-biased news
source and they never have a problem with their reporting,
do they? I will stick with Fox News.
Maybe See-BS hired Jayson Blair? Ya think?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote