The Glade 4.0

Look who's **** talking. In the past year or so, you've somehow gone from a reasonable, intelligent poster who I generally enjoyed hearing from into a flaming dickhead who has jumped with both feat onto the lolbertarian whackjob bandwagon, and turned into a pedantic, insulting *** in the process. I keep hoping I'll see some glimmer of the old reasonable, insightful Stathol, but apparently he's long gone.



Wow, you really have taken the "win through semantic nitpicking" lesson to heart, haven't you?

Dumbass, you're the one that switched from the military in general to the Army. You did it exactly 7 words later in the exact same **** post. Admirals do not have anything to do with maintaining an army with the exception of the CJSC when he happens to be an admiral. So don't tell me I don't know how to read when evidently you either can't read or can't remember what you yourself posted.

In case you hadn't noticed, they're governed by different Constitutional rules for funding. More to the point, they work differently; the nature of the oceans and seas dictates that a Navy be engaged in some sort of patrol and actual operations at all times, while armies tend to just train when not actually fighting or performing some real-world mission. The exception is countries that face a permanent land threat.

So, not only do you utterly fail to grasp the dangers of a military that is not firmly under civilian control (or, more likely you do grasp it and are just handwaving it away because you want to make this absurd semantic argument) you also don't seem to understand the difference between an Army or a Navy. Then again, most likely you do, but are again just ignoring it because the Army's standing in the Constitution give you mildly stronger ground to stand on than the Navy, which was not only recognized as explicitly necessary, but by its nature must operate at all times to serve any purpose.

Furthermore, it doesn't escape me that despite the fact that the issue of war powers has been debated here before repeatedly, this is the first time this semantic nitpick attempt to claim the PResident only commands the armed forces during war has ever come up. In fact I've never seen it anywhere before, which indicates strongly to me that its something you just pulled out of your *** because its become the thing here to practically blow a gasket to suggest that the government has any power to do much of anything.

So don't give me your line of pompous horseshit about intelligent, reasoned responses. If you're going to jump on the "whatever I say is unconstitutional is because I say so and no debate is allowed" bandwagon, be my **** guest. That argument is one I'd have expected from Elmo, not from you.

Normally, I enjoy arguing too, but in this case I'm getting no pleasure from making this post. I'm not, however, going to sit here and take your bullshit when you can't be bothered to even remember what you wrote even though its 7 words later in the sentence. You wan't to argue constitutionality? Fine, show me a **** court decision or something, not this "it's unconstitutional because of this here comma!" *facepalm*. You want to mend the fence? Send me a PM, I'm all ears, because I genuniely do like you, but if you're going to continue this sort of behavior I'm wasting my time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I just don't see what Khross thinks enlistments have to do with anything. In fact, I doubt he really knows what the minimum for an enlistment contract is. In any case, they can be terminated for the convenience of the government, so even if we want to explore them extending beyond the 2 year limit

The 2 year limit thing is a complete red herring regardless. If we really took it to limit everything to 2 years, we'd only be able to fight for 2 years, from starting to train an army to the very end. That would have proven fatal for the nation at least once in the past, and would be a crippling handicap to national defense in any timeframe. I find it hard to beleive that the founding fathers were really as paranoid as people like to claim regarding standing armies, or that they could have tried to create a limit on the that is both crippling and incredibly obtuse.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

When discussing a document (that be necessity is written in a language) the idea that anyone can say that understanding that language and its use is not relevant to the understanding of that document is absurd.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I thought I was the only one to notice.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I find it rather ironic that you've latched on an erroneous semantic nitpick as cause to levy all sorts of insults and general antagonism toward Stathol. After all, army in the general sense includes land, air, and sea forces; and that's historically been the case for the term's general use for few a millennia. And, should one want to be particularly specific about the term, "army" (see cognates in the armada family of Romance terms and its Latin root armare) was first used to describe solely naval forces.

_________________

This thread is so full of win I want to marry it and have a bunch of little baby threads with it.

_________________

Somebody watched Scrubs this week.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Pure. Comedy. Gold.



/head explodes

You should really read a thread before trying to troll, Arathain; you'd look like less of an ***.

_________________

LMFAO

This is the second thread in two weeks where you've trolled around because you thought you understood what was going on instead of actually reading what was posted; moreover, it constitutes a growing pattern of behavior by you. See, there's a reason most of the sensible posters have you on ignore; there's a reason Corolinth's been calling you a illiterate retard for the last 5 years. If you had actually read this thread, you might not have shoved your own foot down your throat.

_________________

This thread is neoMontyism at it's finest.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

While fascinating, that is not the way it is used in contemporary speech. More importantly, laymen almost always focus on the Army at the expense of naval and air forces when casually discussing the military, in part because of the lazy habit of the press of referring to numbers of troops in regad to military operations with little effort to explain the breakdown thereof.

Really, did you honestly think that when Stathol used the term army my first thought should ahve been "Oh he's also talking about the Navy."? Not only does that not help his argument any since they are treated differently and the nature of what they do is different, but really, the last thing pretty much anyone does when they hear a word is try to figure out what its ancient Latin use might have been.

As for antagonism, you're in no position to cricticize.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I tried googling neoMontyism but got no results.

_________________

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_ ... ted_States

United States Army (USA) — June 14, 1775
United States Marine Corps (USMC) — November 10, 1775
United States Navy (USN) — October 13, 1775
United States Air Force (USAF) — September 18, 1947
United States Coast Guard (USCG) — August 4, 1790

United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (PHSCC) — July 16, 1798

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps (NOAA Corps) — May 22, 1917

The army/military conflation is pretty common in contemporary speech; especially is nations that are not the United States.That has to do with our media, but Stathol was not making any tactical or strategic judgments; Stathol was describing general organizational principles: the actual administrative agents of an organization should be able to run the business while the titular head of said organization is absent; to whit, you've pretty much agreed with his observation while continuing to castigate him for arguments he did not make.

_________________

This. I see this occur very frequently.

I was right from the very beginning, assessing character. I may be wrong about everything else, but I was right about this. The three characters that thrive on lies to function, for whatever it's worth, and of course it's not worth much. I was right.

What are you talking about?

_________________

Obama is my guess.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Depending on the schools you go to, the standard enlistment can be longer. It is voluntarily made longer because of choices made by the volunteer.

The Service on the other hand almost always has clauses in the contract that can delay your end date in case the needs of the Service make you in your job too valuable to let you go. That is where all the stop-loss involuntary extensions have been coming in.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

It may be common, but it is still incorrect, especially in a situation like this where the difference between the Army and the Navy is part fo the issue at hand.

As for nations that are not the United States, we are not in one, are not discussing one, and in the vast majority of those nations they don't even speak English, so they really aren't relevant to this issue.

That has to do with our media, but Stathol was not making any tactical or strategic judgments; Stathol was describing general organizational principles: the actual administrative agents of an organization should be able to run the business while the titular head of said organization is absent; to whit, you've pretty much agreed with his observation while continuing to castigate him for arguments he did not make.[/quote][/quote]

I realize it has nothing to do with the media. Whether Stathol was making tactical or strategic judgements is not the issue. The point was that Stathol is a layman, and is prone to referring to the military as the Army mainly because laymen focus on the Army at the expense of the other services. The error is not merely linguistic; it is an error in understanding the nature of the military and is reflected in the way the term "Army" is often used.

I agreed with his observation so far as it went; the managers of an organization should be able to make it run day-to-day without intervention by a titular head, but a titular head is still needed to determine the nature and direction of those operations in the first place. If that does not happen, the organization eventually collapses, or one of those managers becomes the titular head, which is precisely what civilian control of the military is supposed to avoid.

I also have not castigated him for any arguments he didn't make, but really, Stathol is a grown-ass man. He can defend himself just fine if he pleases, or he can as he apparently chosen to do, leave the issue be from here. He really does not need you to speak for him, so why don't you just can it?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."