And I didn’t see any point in addressing that. I disagree with your explanation. Of course I do.
It wasn’t critical to me. It was just justification for apron-tugging.
Thinking back on that period, I would not go too far to congratulate draft resisters of that period for being against the war.
First of all, three million men served in the military during that period and two million of them saw duty in or related to Vietnam. Nineteen million other men were draft-eligible during those years but did not serve. So the experience of Donald Trump or Bill Clinton was hardly unique.
Having been involved with the anti-draft movement, I grew quite fed up that most of the young men I “assisted” were concerned only with protecting themselves and did not care at al about the war or those who served in their stead. Some were conscientious objectors to all wars; some were committed opponent of the venture in Vietnam but the vast majority were self-absorbed and self -interested, nothing more. Those attitudes, and my growing understanding that the draft was pushing the burden of military service almost entirely on underprivileged people caused me to abandon that volunteer work.
The draft system was one that enabled people with even minimal privilege to avoid the military – which is one reason why it was an awful system.
My conclusion was that the only equitable approach in a democratic society is universal service – as in Israel. I believe our approach to the use of military force would be quite different if every young person had an equal likelihood of being ordered to serve in military ventures.
2 Likes
Failing to provide justification for one’s point is and always will be evidence of weakness of one’s argument.
It’s not apron tugging. It’s honest discussion. You’re justifying dishonesty.
Only to the apron-tugger.
The requested support already exists throughout this board. I know you’ve seen some of it too. Regurgitating what we’ve all already seen whenever it gets brought up elsewhere is just clutter. Demanding it nonetheless is apron tugging.
It’s best that you ignore it. There is no other way out.
I could get behind this in a heartbeat.
That’s what it means to anyone with a modicum of critical thought.
You’re justifying dishonesty.
1 Like
Yeah! Go Ana Cabrera! Boy, did she tell that orange man wassup, huh! swoon There’s nothing more truthful in the world than something I agree with. 
Again, a perfect strategy. Just make a joke out of it.
Bravo.
I laugh at funny jokes. You should feel accomplished for telling one. 
There is an author who wrote a book and suggested that people do exactly what you’re doing. Her name slips my mind. But it is a great strategy. You should be complimented for using it.
Ha! We ALL know a guy who’s done everything, been everywhere, and accomplished sooo much more than anyone else…
Glad you took the time to read what ever that’s supposed to be. I’m sure your life will now improve immediately, just as soon as that orange man is out of your home and head for good. 
I didn’t read it but did read the summary of the rules. Your use of one of those rules during this Trump era is really masterful. You should be commended on how you’re using it.
Hmm, I mostly see libs (and non-trump cons) bringing deficits up asking why trumpians and tea parties aren’t.
2 Likes
Now you’re getting it! Best read the thread.
1 Like
Glad you agree!
1 Like
It’s a disingenuous practice that you engaged in yet again when responding to me.
It should stop.
And I will continue to call out people who engage in it.
2 Likes
Sure thing there, skippy! 
Right. But you’re relying on lib thought.
Nothing dishonest about saying, “We’ve had this discussion before.”
Except to a lib, perhaps.
