Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (233947)	5/20/2005 9:43:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574691

That's not an intrinsic problem with making an argument based on the idea of having other priorities but rather a problem you have with my particular priorities. You didn't make that very clear when you said " Ah yes. The "I had other priorities" approach...". I was right to say " I'm not 100% sure I understand you.". So turning to what you meant - My argument is against the draft, not against the idea of having very few or no deferments if you do have a draft. The main problem I might have had with very few or no deferments would be handled by a lottery that only selected a small percentage of potential draftees. I thought you were saying the current system was unfair, and that we need a draft (which you would want to have few exemptions if any) to make it fair. But what you apparently meant was that you think there is going to be a draft and if we have one than it should have few exemptions or perhaps none, in order to make the draft more fair. If your going to have a draft its better to have a fair one. I just don't see a draft as a way of making things more fair. Tim