We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own… Anyway this discussion is reminding me of that old joke about how if you’re one-in-a-million, in China there are 1,300 people just like you.
I just don’t understand the logic here. How many of America’s top 1% richest people have served in the military? How many of their children? I’d bet that the rates are lower than what you’d see in the general population.
Other than fact-specific arguments, when does the ‘military card’ ever work? Outside of those with the above-mentioned gene to genuflect at military service, and perhaps experience with particular populations and contexts (which differ from a private contractor militarily/mercenary/or pure private business how?), and a few select sub-topics (e.g. war is hell; see All Quiet on the Western Front) and the like, when is playing the military card not an appeal to emotion but a rational analysis?
Edumacation isn’t important to the american dream, just guts. People from ubekibekibekibekistanstan who work in call centers might need to understand math, but not us.
Argumentum Ad Arma.
You mean like non sequitur? 
So what happened is the government took a chunk of the money it confiscated from taxpayers, and initiated make-work projects in Iraq/Afghanistan as a justification to pay it to this guy?
Aren’t there laws, or at least guidelines, about the kinds of speech one can participate in while in uniform?
That number might be accurate if he’s referring to families that currently have at least 1 member serving on active duty. But it would have to be immediate families only, and rounding down.
[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
Other than fact-specific arguments, when does the ‘military card’ ever work?
[/QUOTE]
Defensively, it works great. I could argue that Iraq was a mistake, and if anyone attacked my character (“You don’t know what it means to serve!”) I could literally pull a trump card from my wallet. It hasn’t happened a lot, but it’s happened.
I think Marley’s “Oops” refers to the fact that the rise of OWS has given his books title a political connotation that he didn’t intend, not to Brokaw’s math (which as you say, is at least in the right ballpark).
Yes, there are. But I don’t think this is one of those cases. You cannot shill for a particular candidate while in uniform.
I hereby dub it Argumentum ad legionem. Spread it around, people.
[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
Argumentum Ad Arma.
[/QUOTE]
Nah, that’s the “I’m right because I’ve got a club and you don’t” fallacy.
Maybe they did that because of the Iraqi vet the cops beaned and badly injured?
Yup, I was wondering about that.
I’m not in the military, but this guy, if he really is a soldier(I think it’s really naive to automatically accept at face value any of claims put up by the people holding the handwritten signs on this issue) may very well have violated military regulations.
Similarly, if you’re in the military you’re not supposed to attend political rallies in uniform.
That said, again, I wouldn’t assume the guy actually is a soldier just because we see a military uniform in the photo.
Er… that occurred beforehand.
Anyway, it’s not something I begrudge. I’m just pointing out people on all sides like to play this card.
I assume everyone here is old enough to remember John “reporting for duty” Kerry’s run for President.
The guy could be a fake, but in terms of the broader issue it doesn’t really matter.
Sadly, very often used.
I had read half this thread before I finally realized what “OWS” stands for. Maybe I’m out of touch, but this “occupy” stuff seems like it’s just an obscure Internet thing.
About that guy’s sign - what the hell is trying to say with it? He’s in the military, which is 1% of the US population, but he is one of the .001%, which would be one out of a thousand service members I guess? One out of a thousand that what?
I’m a bit confused by the link since all the rules it refers to apply to active-duty service-members, but it begins by saying that a* retired* Major General broke the rules by writing a letter encouraging people to vote for a certain candidate.