Who Here Supports a Draft?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Wrong as usual. Blackwater and such companies exist because people like you agreed cutting the army to the bone was a good idea, they exist because there are no troops to assign those jobs to. They do NOT exist because someone claimed it would be cheaper to hire civilians.

Let us see, what is it we are missing? Ohh ya, proof your claims are even remotely true. provide us some links to sources and documents that support the above claims.

IRR is actually the inactive service obligated period that everyone signs on when they join. I believe currently everyone that joins is obligated for 8 years but can chose to serve 4 or 6 active and the rest in IRR. And again IRR is explained to the person before they sign the dotted line. They are not part time soldiers, your thinking of the National Guard. And the National Guard also knows that in time of need THEY get activated. Years ago the Army decided that the Guard would be considered part of the active force for planning purposes. 1/3 of every Division was a Guard Brigade, that would be activated in time of need.

Absolute hogwash. You can not even support any of your claims. And then add this as well.

There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.

I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.

Cheney's bill proposed the elimination of five of the Army's 28 active-duty and reserve divisions. He imposed the biggest budget cuts on the Army. His reasoning for the cuts was obvious. The mission of defending Western Europe was brought into question by the Bush 1 administration policy. Political changes in Eastern Europe and the withdrawal of some Soviet forces forced Cheney to look into budget cuts. There was simply too much fat.

Under the plan, the number of Army and Air Force personnel would be reduced in 1991 to its lowest level in 40 years. Two active Army divisions, the Second Armored Division at Fort Hood, Tex., and the Ninth Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Wash would be gone. The Pentagon budget for the fiscal year 1991 cut around 38,000 people from the armed services.

Read the 1991 Pentagon budget for yourself, if you do not believe me. It is in the public record for all to see

On a side note. Please, if you're not going to be serious. If you're not going to bother to have an open mind. If you're only avenue of debate is to personally insult me, I offer a suggestion. Place me on your ignore list and save yourself the trouble.

It was not "people like me" who agreed to cut the Army. In fact, it was a budget proposal authored by the defense secretary at the time - Dick Cheney - and passed by a bi-partisan committee of Senators from both sides of the isle.

Try doing your homework GYsgt and maybe you would have at least known the author of the 1991 Pentagon budget proposal's name. Your obvious ignorance of a complex topic is exceeded only by your silly needless arrogance.

 

[Annie]

There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.

I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.

Cheney's bill proposed the elimination of five of the Army's 28 active-duty and reserve divisions. He imposed the biggest budget cuts on the Army. His reasoning for the cuts was obvious. The mission of defending Western Europe was brought into question by the Bush 1 administration policy. Political changes in Eastern Europe and the withdrawal of some Soviet forces forced Cheney to look into budget cuts. There was simply too much fat.

Under the plan, the number of Army and Air Force personnel would be reduced in 1991 to its lowest level in 40 years. Two active Army divisions, the Second Armored Division at Fort Hood, Tex., and the Ninth Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Wash would be gone. The Pentagon budget for the fiscal year 1991 cut around 38,000 people from the armed services.

Read the 1991 Pentagon budget for yourself, if you do not believe me. It is in the public record for all to see

On a side note. Please, if you're not going to be serious. If you're not going to bother to have an open mind. If you're only avenue of debate is to personally insult me, I offer a suggestion. Place me on your ignore list and save yourself the trouble.

It was not "people like me" who agreed to cut the Army. In fact, it was a budget proposal authored by the defense secretary at the time - Dick Cheney - and passed by a bi-partisan committee of Senators from both sides of the isle.

Try doing your homework GYsgt and maybe you would have at least known the author of the 1991 Pentagon budget proposal's name. Your obvious ignorance of a complex topic is exceeded only by your silly needless arrogance.

Gee, do you think something happened to change his mind? D'oh!

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Gee, do you think something happened to change his mind? D'oh!

I'm only 19. He's much older. He should know this from memory.

Either way, I'd rather get to the root of the problem than change his mind or ideology. His laziness trumps all.

Getting his ass to a library will remain the major concern from my vantage point. The next step would involve formulating solid credible conclusions based on scholarly sources. But let's take it one step at a time.

 

[Annie]

I'm only 19. He's much older. He should know this from memory.

Either way, I'd rather get to the root of the problem than change his mind or ideology. His laziness trumps all.

Getting his ass to a library will remain the major concern from my vantage point. The next step would involve formulating solid credible conclusions based on scholarly sources. But let's take it one step at a time.

Again, d'oh. You are missing much here.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Again, d'oh. You are missing much here.

Why are you speaking in code?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why are you speaking in code?

5 divisions. I suggest YOU get to a library. We cut a LOT more than 5 Divisions. We went from 28 Divisions to what? 10? So umm who cut past the 5 Divisions?

 

[Gunny]

Certainly I will explain. First off, let me repeat myself. The AVA (all volunteer army) has been a disaster for America. I don't say this to "bash" anyone. I am simply exercising my opinion based off of the personal research I have done into the issue.

I reach this conclusions for many reasons. The AVA has developed an Enron style business management. This model has led and approached the Iraq war with inadequate troop numbers, outright fraud, waste, extreme susceptibility to manipulation, theft and the outsourcing of intelligence and manpower to private corporations who overcharge the US taxpayer at what some would argue are criminal rates.

Soldiers in Iraq have a little saying. It's called "going Blackwater". The reasons are obvious for the jump. It pays more, soldiers have vast legal protections, they serve less time and have better equipment than your regular joe.

The US military, along with some ambitious Washington politicians, thought outsourcing the war in Iraq to mercenaries was/is an integral part of the AVA. They argued it was part of a "cost cutting" measure designed to lead a more efficient US military. In fact, it turned out to be anything but an honest attempt to save money. Instead it turned into a grotesque swindle of soldiers and taxpayers. Remember, the executive administration smeared those who argued that the Iraq war could cost hundreds of billions of dollars or more, some were even forced to resign or had their credibility attacked. Washington claimed the Iraq war would " pay for itself."

As I have already pointed out to you, the US military is not an autonomous entity. That you cannot differentiate between those who make policy and those who carry it out is endemic in each of your threads, and creates a false premise for your opinion.

You call the all volunteer force a disaster with absolutely nothing to back up yuor argument BUT that false premise. It's kind of hard to present facts to counter an opinion that is not based on any.

Secondly, the AVA isn't really "volunteer" at all. It is now entering a phase where "forced military duty" is more the appropriate term.

Hardly any active duty personnel were told about the "stop loss" provisions. In fact, military recruiters made an effort to not disclose details of their contracts. It's very simple really. Survive a tour in a war, expect to go safely home, and then be forced to stay longer. Does that sound like "volunteering" to you?

Then there is the "IRR." Again, this is a vast pool of citizen-soldiers who signed on to be part-time soldiers, with minimal military duty. Thousands of IRR "volunteers" now sit in the desert as full-time soldiers. Most of these troops thought their military commitment was finished, but they were re-called into active duty. Again, that's hardly voluntary to me.

I believe I have already dispelled this little misconception on your part as well. One cannot enlist without having the 8 year total commitment -- however many years of active duty plus the remainder of the 8 years in the IRR explained to them, and they are REQUIRED to initial that they understand it in the DD Form 1966 documents of enlistment.

Perhaps YOU are in the habit of signing stuff -- especially stuff that obligates your services -- but a thinking individual would read everything he signs and if it concurs with understanding, then I would think that individual would be sure of that understanding.

You basically are making the same argument made by reservists during the First Gulf War when called to active duty -- "we signed up for the school, not to go fight a war." GMAFB.

And of course, the war in Iraq is hardly going well. If it were, why the need to surge the surge...why the need for a surge at all?

Again, please provide evidence that anyone other than some military officer is asking for more bodies. Most military officers I've encountered want more bodies. It's the nature of the beast. Attempting to quote one or two that are and misrepresenting it as "the military" is BS.

A document from the JCS to the CinC requesting more units and an outlined strategy to support that request will do just fine.

That's an easy question to answer. Because the AVA has been a disaster and it's inherent design flaws have been exposed in Iraq.

You're talking in circles and explaining nothing. Your opinions on both the "disaster" of the all-volunteer force and failure in Iraq are baseless and using one to support the other hardly validates either in any way.

Even if we went into Iraq knowing there was going to be a draft. I do not think the fraud, the waste, the overcharging etc would have occurred in Iraq in the same proportions that is going on right now had we conscripted citizens into battle.

The AVA has been a dismal failure. And the Iraq war is evidence of that.

That is my opinion.

Basically, you have absolutely no basis for your opinion but conjecture built upon conjecture. There are no facts here, only assumptions. Your ignorance of the US military is not only obvious, but appalling in that you hold such an opinion with very little knowledge beyond the fact the the US military does indeed exist.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

5 divisions. I suggest YOU get to a library. We cut a LOT more than 5 Divisions. We went from 28 Divisions to what? 10? So umm who cut past the 5 Divisions?

A bi-partisan committee of Senators/Congressmen from both sides of the isle who felt outsourcing Army divisions was to be the future direction of the AVA.

You made a claim, that it was "people like me," who cut the army. Even though I had nothing to do with any bill that was written, or any Pentagon Budget that was proposed.

Your claim is not only stupid, baseless and off-handed political rhetoric, but a veiled personal attack as well.

Like I said before, your approach to the discussion remains a tactic of the desperate. And that's exactly what you are.

Get up and go to a library.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I'm only 19. He's much older. He should know this from memory.

Either way, I'd rather get to the root of the problem than change his mind or ideology. His laziness trumps all.

Getting his ass to a library will remain the major concern from my vantage point. The next step would involve formulating solid credible conclusions based on scholarly sources. But let's take it one step at a time.

sometimes real world experience trumps scholarly sources. when you get out into the real world and "grow up" you will learn this.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

As I have already pointed out to you, the US military is not an autonomous entity. That you cannot differentiate between those who make policy and those who carry it out is endemic in each of your threads, and creates a false premise for your opinion.

You call the all volunteer force a disaster with absolutely nothing to back up yuor argument BUT that false premise. It's kind of hard to present facts to counter an opinion that is not based on any.



I believe I have already dispelled this little misconception on your part as well. One cannot enlist without having the 8 year total commitment -- however many years of active duty plus the remainder of the 8 years in the IRR explained to them, and they are REQUIRED to initial that they understand it in the DD Form 1966 documents of enlistment.

Perhaps YOU are in the habit of signing stuff -- especially stuff that obligates your services -- but a thinking individual would read everything he signs and if it concurs with understanding, then I would think that individual would be sure of that understanding.

You basically are making the same argument made by reservists during the First Gulf War when called to active duty -- "we signed up for the school, not to go fight a war." GMAFB.



Again, please provide evidence that anyone other than some military officer is asking for more bodies. Most military officers I've encountered want more bodies. It's the nature of the beast. Attempting to quote one or two that are and misrepresenting it as "the military" is BS.

A document from the JCS to the CinC requesting more units and an outlined strategy to support that request will do just fine.



You're talking in circles and explaining nothing. Your opinions on both the "disaster" of the all-volunteer force and failure in Iraq are baseless and using one to support the other hardly validates either in any way.



Basically, you have absolutely no basis for your opinion but conjecture built upon conjecture. There are no facts here, only assumptions. Your ignorance of the US military is not only obvious, but appalling in that you hold such an opinion with very little knowledge beyond the fact the the US military does indeed exist.

Give it up Gunny. You can't debate those you have to educate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A bi-partisan committee of Senators/Congressmen from both sides of the isle who felt outsourcing Army divisions was to be the future direction of the AVA.

You made a claim, that it was "people like me," who cut the army. Even though I had nothing to do with any bill that was written, or any Pentagon Budget that was proposed.

Your claim is not only stupid, baseless and off-handed political rhetoric, but a veiled personal attack as well.

Like I said before, your approach to the discussion remains a tactic of the desperate. And that's exactly what you are.

Get up and go to a library.

Wrong again, provide us this "Bi-Partsan" committee, the year, the make up and such.

Your claim was 5 Divisions. That is absolutely untrue.

 

[BrianH]

I never ever claimed it was coming from the military treasury. The point was the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket - which it does.

SO why is this even relevant to the argument?? Soldiers volunteer for service, end of story.

You have a serious debating problem...you fail to bring up any facts about why you think the military is doing a bad job (mainly because the facts that you bring up have nothing to do with the fact that the Miltary is doing a bad job.) Most of your own arguments point towards politicians and decisions made by higher powes...NOT THE MILITARY... Contracted Mercenaries have screwed up several operations that the military was working on in Iraq...

Ex:http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/26/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Contractor-Deaths.php

Caused a lot of problems for the U.S. military in this area after siginificant head-way.

 

[BrianH]

There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.

I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.

Cheney's bill proposed the elimination of five of the Army's 28 active-duty and reserve divisions. He imposed the biggest budget cuts on the Army. His reasoning for the cuts was obvious. The mission of defending Western Europe was brought into question by the Bush 1 administration policy. Political changes in Eastern Europe and the withdrawal of some Soviet forces forced Cheney to look into budget cuts. There was simply too much fat.

Under the plan, the number of Army and Air Force personnel would be reduced in 1991 to its lowest level in 40 years. Two active Army divisions, the Second Armored Division at Fort Hood, Tex., and the Ninth Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Wash would be gone. The Pentagon budget for the fiscal year 1991 cut around 38,000 people from the armed services.

Read the 1991 Pentagon budget for yourself, if you do not believe me. It is in the public record for all to see

On a side note. Please, if you're not going to be serious. If you're not going to bother to have an open mind. If you're only avenue of debate is to personally insult me, I offer a suggestion. Place me on your ignore list and save yourself the trouble.

It was not "people like me" who agreed to cut the Army. In fact, it was a budget proposal authored by the defense secretary at the time - Dick Cheney - and passed by a bi-partisan committee of Senators from both sides of the isle.

Try doing your homework GYsgt and maybe you would have at least known the author of the 1991 Pentagon budget proposal's name. Your obvious ignorance of a complex topic is exceeded only by your silly needless arrogance.

Once again, did the military all have a seat at a luncheon and vote for this bill. Your personal research is fine, but has nothing to do with the military.... The decisions (according to your own words) are coming from the politicians.....(bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats...not a b-partisan committee of Generals, soldiers, etc....

 

[Gunny]

There you go again, injecting me into the issue. I don't know why it is that you love about me so much, but this has stop. I, personally, am not relevent to the vaildity and veracity of my claims concerning the division cuts.

I am giving you my opinion based from personal research. The division cuts, by the way, were approved by a bi-partisan committee of Republicans and Democrats. It might interest the eager observer to know the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, authored and outlined a long-term plan for reshaping the military in 1991.

Cheney's bill proposed the elimination of five of the Army's 28 active-duty and reserve divisions. He imposed the biggest budget cuts on the Army. His reasoning for the cuts was obvious. The mission of defending Western Europe was brought into question by the Bush 1 administration policy. Political changes in Eastern Europe and the withdrawal of some Soviet forces forced Cheney to look into budget cuts. There was simply too much fat.

Under the plan, the number of Army and Air Force personnel would be reduced in 1991 to its lowest level in 40 years. Two active Army divisions, the Second Armored Division at Fort Hood, Tex., and the Ninth Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Wash would be gone. The Pentagon budget for the fiscal year 1991 cut around 38,000 people from the armed services.

Read the 1991 Pentagon budget for yourself, if you do not believe me. It is in the public record for all to see

On a side note. Please, if you're not going to be serious. If you're not going to bother to have an open mind. If you're only avenue of debate is to personally insult me, I offer a suggestion. Place me on your ignore list and save yourself the trouble.

It was not "people like me" who agreed to cut the Army. In fact, it was a budget proposal authored by the defense secretary at the time - Dick Cheney - and passed by a bi-partisan committee of Senators from both sides of the isle.

Try doing your homework GYsgt and maybe you would have at least known the author of the 1991 Pentagon budget proposal's name. Your obvious ignorance of a complex topic is exceeded only by your silly needless arrogance.

You are presenting unsubstantiated statements as fact. You don't tell someone to go look up the support for your argument. YOU provide it. Otherwise, what you post is unsupported and it is up to the reader to accept it or not.

As far as military downsizing goes, perhaps a little homework is in order for you. The downsizing was to make the services comply with their manpower strength as authorized by Congress. Every branch of service was WAY over strength from the buildup during the Reagan years.

And please, young 'un, don't presume to call retired military veterans ignorant on a topic, complex or not, when you can't even substantiate the accusation made in your intitial post.

Ignoring my responses that completely dismantle your arguments doesn't make them invisible to anyone. Just a thought.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Wrong again, provide us this "Bi-Partsan" committee, the year, the make up and such.

Your claim was 5 Divisions. That is absolutely untrue.

My claim the 1991 Pentagon budget cut five divisions is untrue? What are you saying, the budget proposed a cut of 10?

Even if your correct, the increased 1991 troops cuts from five to ten would solidify my argument and critically weaken yours.

 

[BrianH]

My claim the 1991 Pentagon budget cut five divisions is untrue? What are you saying, the budget proposed a cut of 10?

Even if your correct, the increased 1991 troops cuts from five to ten would solidify my argument and critically weaken yours.

First off, it's you're--contraction of you are.

Second off, are you still arguing the same thing that you began arguing at the beginng of the thread? If you are correct, and the Pentagon did decrease troop levels by 10 or 15 divisions, what would this have to do with the military doing a poor job?

Did they all vote to be down-sized?
Or was it the politicians that wanted to down-size the military? (in which case it still would not be the military making the decisions, but the politicians. The military doing poorly (which they're most certainly not) has nothing to do with the things you're mentioning.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

You are presenting unsubstantiated statements as fact. You don't tell someone to go look up the support for your argument. YOU provide it. Otherwise, what you post is unsupported and it is up to the reader to accept it or not.

As far as military downsizing goes, perhaps a little homework is in order for you. The downsizing was to make the services comply with their manpower strength as authorized by Congress. Every branch of service was WAY over strength from the buildup during the Reagan years.
And please, young 'un, don't presume to call retired military veterans ignorant on a topic, complex or not, when you can't even substantiate the accusation made in your intitial post.

Ignoring my responses that completely dismantle your arguments doesn't make them invisible to anyone. Just a thought.

I don't understand what you want short of writing an essay on the matter complete with a bibliography and footnotes. Let's recap the progression of the thread. I started a thread with my opinion on the draft. I stated I formed my conclusions based from personal research and shared it with others.

You made a conscious decision to participate in it.

You're next step involved a challenge to write a paper for you and post it on this message board. Never mind that such an exercise would simply take too much time and too much effort; you did not like what I had to say, period. Of course, posting on this message board is after all a recreational exercise. But it's hard to get that message across to a lunatic internet personality masquerading as gatekeeper of knowledge.

In short, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Google the 1991 budget and find out yourself. I'm not going to enable your laziness unless I feel it's necessary to provide the group with a link.

You don't like what I am saying? You can always surf to a new thread.

To sit there and tell me my opinion or claims are inaccurate because GunnyL is only accepting essays authored by me is ridiculous and bizarre. Why don't you provide links and write me an essay that says something different? There's always that option you know.

But I know that you won't and I don't think intelligence is the issue with you. We'll call it laziness.

You want me to do homework for you. As if you feel this bizarre request will make you feel better about yourself because, God help us, you read a thread that got many responses you did not like.

Face it, there's a new sheriff in town.


P.S. When I come across a written response by you 'that completely dismantles my arguments,' I'll let you know.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

As I have already pointed out to you, the US military is not an autonomous entity. That you cannot differentiate between those who make policy and those who carry it out is endemic in each of your threads, and creates a false premise for your opinion.

You call the all volunteer force a disaster with absolutely nothing to back up yuor argument BUT that false premise. It's kind of hard to present facts to counter an opinion that is not based on any.

I believe I have already dispelled this little misconception on your part as well. One cannot enlist without having the 8 year total commitment -- however many years of active duty plus the remainder of the 8 years in the IRR explained to them, and they are REQUIRED to initial that they understand it in the DD Form 1966 documents of enlistment.


You basically are making the same argument made by reservists during the First Gulf War when called to active duty -- "we signed up for the school, not to go fight a war." GMAFB.

Again, please provide evidence that anyone other than some military officer is asking for more bodies. Most military officers I've encountered want more bodies. It's the nature of the beast. Attempting to quote one or two that are and misrepresenting it as "the military" is BS.

Acquaint yourself with the strawman fallacy GunnyL, because the above bolded sentences litter your entire response. You are cheating GunnyL. That's what you are doing when you employ this fallacy. It's a weapon the incapabale employ to hoodwink the proper rules of debate.


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

[BrianH]

I don't understand what you want short of writing an essay on the matter complete with a bibliography and footnotes. Let's recap the progression of the thread. I started a thread with my opinion on the draft. I stated I formed my conclusions based from personal research and shared it with others.

You made a conscious decision to participate in it.

You're next step involved a challenge to write a paper for you and post it on this message board. Never mind that such an exercise would simply take too much time and too much effort; you did not like what I had to say, period. Of course, posting on this message board is after all a recreational exercise. But it's hard to get that message across to a lunatic internet personality masquerading as gatekeeper of knowledge.

In short, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Google the 1991 budget and find out yourself. I'm not going to enable your laziness unless I feel it's necessary to provide the group with a link.

You don't like what I am saying? You can always surf to a new thread.

To sit there and tell me my opinion or claims are inaccurate because GunnyL is only accepting essays authored by me is ridiculous and bizarre. Why don't you provide links and write me an essay that says something different? There's always that option you know.

But I know what you won't and I don't think it's intelligence. We'll call it laziness.

You want me to do homework for you. As if you feel this bizarre request will make you feel better about yourself because, God help us, you read a thread that got many responses you did not like.

Face it, there's a new sheriff in town.


P.S. When I come across a written response by you 'that completely dismantles my arguments,' I'll let you know.

What is it, do you think, about your research that leads you to believe that our military is doing a bad job? You have obviously done alot of research, but you are applying to the wrong hypothesis to your research; that the military is doing a poor job.

News flash, the military does not control how much money gets put into their budget first off.
If the budget is lowered or raised during any time, that's Congress making the decisions.

If a decision is made to send soldiers to an unjustified war, then thats the President and Congress making the decisions, not the military or it's soldiers.

The military is given a job to do, they do it, end of story. I have yet to see the GIs not clear out a town when they're asked to do so. You start finding documents about soldiers not completing their mission, then could say say that they didn't do a good job on that particular mission.

Just some advice, there's a reason your rep points are low....I have yet to give you any because I feel you need a full education before you can fully be accountable for the things that you say. Just a little heads up.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Just some advice, there's a reason your rep points are low....I have yet to give you any because I feel you need a full education before you can fully be accountable for the things that you say. Just a little heads up.

A tattered reputation never outweighed the validity of the writing and findings of Galileo. His books were not only banned but considered deviant and false.

Who's laughing now?