Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty

[Dill]

(08-14-2020, 10:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I got it, it just isn't put into practice,
Your posting history suggests otherwise.
Again, your posting history suggests otherwise.
No, it's your posting history that led me to this conclusion.
Ahh, so they do sweat an oath to the Constitution, but it's ok when they break it because it only affects local people.  At least, as stated in this thread, as long as it's not you and Nati.
Who said they should be of more concern?  I said a far better argument could be made that they violated their oath of office than Trump has.  Please restrict yourself to responding to arguments I actually made.
No, it's your actual statement i this thread that implies that.
No, I'm far too stupid to understand that word.  I mean, it's not like your statements that you only care about what affects you, hence inferring that your consciousnesses is the only one that exists or is important constitutes a sollislistic point of view.  I suppose I should be thankful you didn't start with LOL.
Nah.  For some reason this statement reminds me of Damon Wayans' "street businessman" routine.
This is coming from the same person who saw Fred's arguments as compelling and insightful.  You'll forgive me for taking a jaundiced view of your opinion in this regard.
Nope, I'm too stupid. 
For the same reason I don't argue with a flat Earther, Alex Jones or an antivaxer.  They have their opinions, their opinions are truth to them and I don't care to waste my time.  I've already explained what I find objectionable about this "letter" and why.  If that doesn't suffice for you then I suppose I'll just have to try and not let it keep me up at night.  
Fifth times the charm though, eh? 

You've explained "what you find objectionable about this letter" in the form of a straw man, without even establishing that you have read it. You don't care to "waste your time," having pre-judged it, but you have time for post after post of superficial quips. And you are clearly not able to go beyond that. 

Nagl and Yingling's "opinions" are not their "truth to them." That's actually the standard of someone who reduces all arguments to "opinion," ignoring qualitative differences in support. Your standard. Like the vagary of my "posting history," safely referenced without examples, you keep your proof to yourself, because you don't really have it. (My "posting history" by the way, is just more of what we find in this thread--explanations of what constitutes logical argument and demands you support bald assertions vs quipery, projections and "opinions," and finally your skedaddle.)
,
Nagl and Yingling have presented a public argument, subject to logical and empirical challenge--which they won't defend by calling it "their truth." The kind of argument you refuse to engage as argument. Not because they are flat earthers or resemble Alex Jones, but because you are not up to the work. You are not going to explain why Trump has really NOT abused his power, or if he has why we should not worry he will abuse when election arrives. You are only going to spin up quips disrespecting others and complaining your quipery is disrespected, all the while "not wasting time" actually reading and demonstrating that you understand the danger you warn others about.

So no, of course that doesn't suffice. It makes a page and half of this thread rather a waste.

(08-14-2020, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: I should add that we are already to your fourth fifth post, and I don't see you identifying the premises of either argument presented above and challenging them. You just keep making claims about credibility, the authors', Trump's advisors, mine yours, without actually touching the points argued. It just sounds like you are trying to scare people away from considering a possible election scenario and the thread discussing it, while judging its content from a distance. Have you even read either of the articles?

Feel free to make an argument against points actually being made.