Paul Montez of Troops are Welfare Whores, my Response to your "Serious" Question to the Military

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster‎: Serious question for every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. 

I read your question. You ask us a serious question, you asked us a question based on your lack of understanding of how the real world works. You made an assumption that your ignorance, of what's going on in the world, was "reality."

It isn't.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: If you really believe you protect our freedoms, 

Have you paid attention to what our enemies have said? They have put enough video on the Internet to make it clear that they intend to put the flag of Islam on top of the White House. You have to see this from their, radical Islam's, perspective.

They argue that we should live under their strict interpretation of Islamic law. Our Constitution is a violation under radical Islamic law. To them, Islamic law is a law of God. They see our Constitution as a law created by men, an abomination.

They've declared their intention of destroying the United States. This is key, because if they could successfully defeat the US military in the United States, the rest of the world is theirs for the taking.

They are following what they feel is their manifest destiny. This a manifest destiny that started with the rise of Mohammed. Crack open a history book and read about how fast Islam spread throughout the Christian world.

Prior to Mohammed, the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea were predominantly Christian. Over 60% of Christianity was wiped out due to the spread of Islam. It was spread similar to the way ISIS is going about it in Iraq and Syria today.

The radicals in that region anticipate that the entire world will be under the flag of Islam. If they succeed, forget about your constitutional rights. Better yet, forget about your interpretation of what true freedom is.

You'll be living under radical Islamic law. If you refuse to convert to their interpretation of it, you'll get beheaded in front of your family.

Then they'll take the women of your family as sex slaves. Now, let's say you do convert in this scenario. Guess what? You're expected to join the fight against non-Muslims. Once you convert, you could end up being pressed into their militia service... what they call "being a holy warrior".

Once that happens, you'll be doing the very things that you argue against on your Facebook wall. If they determine that you can't go to the frontlines, they could easily position you to where you're in a supportive role... enabling the very things that you argue against.

It's either that, or your life being taken while the women in your family end up becoming sex slaves. Married? Not if you're dead. Your wife or girlfriend could end up being the sex slave of the person that takes your life.

If you don't think that we protect your freedoms, go to Iraq and Syria and talk to those who have been victimized by ISIS. This is an example when a military is unable to protect the rights of the people that they're supposed to defend.

It's a fact, The United States Military protects the freedoms of all Americans in the United States.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: if you really believe you uphold and defend the constitution,

We uphold and defend the Constitution, that's a fact. We swear an oath to defend the Constitution. We guarantee that no foreign power, or US-born enemies, does something that results in people not benefiting from their constitutional rights.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster:  then why don't you start shooting at politicians taking away our rights? 

Where, in the United States Constitution, does it authorize the United States military to start shooting at politicians? Simply making this statement proves that you have absolutely no clue about what the Constitution is about, or how it came about.

Because the politicians that you talk about are not taking away our rights. And, if they were taking away our rights, what are you doing about it, other than calling for people to break the law?

You people forget that it's the people in the United States that's responsible for governing the people of the United States. Congress works for the American people. The President of the United States works for the American people. Congress and the president are public servants.

They work for us.

If you, and your fellow tinfoil hat Army, strongly believe that the politicians have been taking our rights away, why aren't you people doing anything about it politically and peacefully?

We have the judicial system in the United States, with the United States Supreme Court sitting at the top. The court's job is to strike down any law that violates the Constitution. If you feel that any law that Congress has created, that the President has signed into law, has taken away our rights, why haven't you taken this to the court's attention?

This is a right that you have as a citizen of the United States.

Second, we don't have the authority to go around shooting people that you think are enemies of the people. In our system of government, everybody has a right to due process of law. Even if you know that somebody has committed an act that requires the death penalty, that someone has a right to due process of law.

There's also a due process involved with removing someone from office. You didn't bother looking into that. You people refuse to exercise your self-governing rights, through your representatives. You people don't have a leg to stand on.

In the United States, when there's no war going on, the only people that should really be taking the time to decide if someone should die, or not, is the court system. This includes judge and jury. If someone is brought up on charges that could include life in prison or the death penalty, it will be the judicial process that makes that decision.

Even if these politicians did try to take our rights away, that act doesn't call for the death penalty. Again, you people have to leverage your numbers when it comes to communicating peacefully and legally with your representatives. You also have to leverage your numbers at the ballot box.

There are legislative and judicial procedures to removing politicians from office. You'll have to reference legislative procedures and the judicial system in this country, and in your area, to get more details.

There's a more peaceful way to do this, and it involves you doing your job as a voter. You failed to do that... so has the majority of the electorate. You people have no legs stand on demanding punishment for the politicians that you people refuse to "supervise."

Every single time a conspiracy whack job tries to argue that our rights are being taken away, they fail to prove their point. They mention a law. But, when I read the text of that law, it's blatantly obvious that these conspiracy whack jobs didn't read the text of this law that they're condemning.

The Patriot Act? Nothing in the text of the Patriot Act suggests that our rights are being taken away. The NDAA? Nothing in the text of the NDAA suggests that were losing our rights. But, if you can find a law that contains text that specifically takes our rights away, you have a responsibility as a citizen to bring that to the court's attention.

If that law was written by the federal government, then you have to bring that to the attention of the federal courts. Likewise, if the law was written by your state government, you need to bring that to the attention of your state courts.

Nothing has been done because the conspiracy whack jobs have consistently failed to prove that our rights are being taken away.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you go to the White House and arrest or kill your commander in chief who you claim to despise? 

First, we are a nation of laws. We, the members of the military, make our decisions based on the facts. You people, the tinfoil hat Army, have failed to prove that the President has done anything that would warrant the treatment that you're demanding.

Also, nowhere in the United States Constitution is your call authorized. The President has done nothing to warrant his being shot. He has done nothing to warrant the United States military placing him under arrest.

Yes, many of us will disagree with him in private. But, he has not committed to an action that would warrant the military doing anything to him. Again, if you feel that the President should not be in the White House, if you feel that he should no longer be president, then you need to bring that to the attention of your representative.

There's a constitutional process involved in removing the president. If he meets that, then you need to take that up with your representative.

Second, we don't have the authority to make arrests on US soil. Federal law prohibits our use in general law enforcement outside of a federal military reservation.

Paul Montez, the Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you storm the NSA headquarters and arrest the people spying on us? 

First, you need to review the Posse Comitatus Act. Federal law prohibits the use of the United States military for general law enforcement. If the people that you talk about, and the NSA headquarters, have broken the law, then the law enforcement in charge of handling their situation needs to place them under arrest.

Second, you failed to prove that their actions require them to be arrested. All you've done was to base your opinion on second hand information. The big question is this, do you have hard-core evidence that he NSA has been spying on you?

If you do, if you could prove that they have been spying on you specifically, is it for something that's justifiable?

The fourth amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It does nothing to protect you from a reasonable search... like a crime in progress, with the tools of crime in plain view. If you're breaking the law, for example, coordinating with terrorists intending to commit acts of terror, or helping the terrorist, then listening in to your conversation is a reasonable "search".

If those descriptions fit you, then they should be spying on you. If you're breaking a state law, the state should be spying on you to get evidence to hold you accountable. That's part of investigation. A warrant would be obtained just the same.

The Patriot Act requires a judge's consent, if a search is going to be done before a warrant is going to be issued... because the time needed to stop a crime is shorter than the process to obtain a warrant. Better to get the judge's verbal authorization now, while the warrant issuing process is underway, if waiting for a written warrant would delay the prevention of an act of terrorism from happening.

That's not an erosion of our rights, but a move that brings law enforcement into the 21st century.

The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that the NSA has specifically been spying on you. If you have that evidence, then you have to prove that you are completely innocent. That is, if you're going to accuse the NSA of committing crimes.

I doubt that you're making this argument because you have "evidence" that the NSA was "spying" on you. There's very good chance that you are arguing this point because of what you heard from others.

Put that Kool-Aid down. Look at the applicable laws that presumably violate your "constitutional rights". If you can't find such loss in our rights, if you cannot quote specific statements from those laws, then you don't have an argument.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you arrest IRS agents who target conservatives? 

Again, using the United States military for law enforcement is a violation of federal law. You want those agents arrested for targeting conservatives, which is a violation of federal law, but you want us to break federal law to get one of your wishes carried out.

Where's the logic in that?

Let Congress investigate that organization. If they find fault, the mechanisms are already in place to hold those agents accountable. I guarantee you that this will not require the use of the United States military.

Doing what you demand is outside of our lane, it's not our job.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why don't you arrest government officials who sell weapons to drug cartels? 

The same story here as with your last point. Since this is an act of the federal government, by government officials, this falls into the domain of federal law enforcement and Congress. This is outside the United States military's control.

Paul Montez, The Troops are Welfare Whores poster: Why instead do you take orders from corrupt beauracrats who send you to countries who literally pose no threat to us?

This statement proves that you have absolutely no clue about what you're trying to argue. Throughout your "serious question", quotation marks used strongly, you've shown the reader that you know little to no facts about what you're talking about. You show the reader that you know a lot of the garbage the conspiracy whack jobs spew.

Do you have hard-core evidence that the bureaucrats, that give us orders, are corrupt? If you do, there are procedures in place that you, as a regular citizen, to utilize to get that bureaucrat held accountable. Without evidence, with nothing but a tinfoil hat argument, you're assuming that all our bureaucrats are corrupt.

Also, your failure to see the threat that we addressed during the War and Terror shows that you have little to no understanding of asymmetrical warfare. You have little to no knowledge of world history. You have little to no knowledge of current events... outside of what other conspiracy whack jobs have told you.

I guarantee you that the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, our support for the wars going on around the world that focus on fighting the terrorists, are all connected to our security. Go back and read what I said about Mohammed, and the radical Islamic movement today.

You failed to understand that in this war, which is a mortal struggle between radical Islam and the West, led by the United States, there could only be one outcome.

The cold hard reality is that there could only be one outcome to this struggle.

Either we win and change the geopolitical, economic, and cultural outlook in that region, or radical elements of that region will succeed in turning the United States, and the rest of the west, into a series of radical Islamic caliphates.

There is no third option. There is no other option. In the end, one side or the other will get its way. I vote that we prevail. If we don't, they'll prevail. With the radical Islamists in charge, you wouldn't think that the current government arrangement is what you think it is.

If you bothered to do your own research, to include knowing what's BS from what's valid, you'd know that.

You see conspiracy were none exists. You're seriously blind to where it does exist.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Lies About our Debate

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: He is on an anti-TTAWW page saying that I banned him because he beat me in a debate. That is false. 

That's a fact. I beat you in debate. You even backed away from an argument you originally supported. You said this to me towards the end of our debate, before you banned me:

"Also, you should try to be more concise. This isn't a very good medium for such long comments." -- Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores

Usually, when people demand that shorten my posts, they're getting mad... or they've already gotten mad. They're seeing that they don't have an argument, and they see the length of my posts as an extensive reason to why they're wrong.

This didn't sit well with you. You pulled many of the cards that the losing side of the debate normally pulls during a debate. This is the pattern that I've seen repeatedly throughout the decade I've been debating people online.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I banned him for several reasons:

Your own statement:

"Joe and you are banned for lying." -- Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores

Nope, that doesn't sound like "several reasons." You banned me for disagreeing with you.

You didn't ban me for the reasons that you stated below.

You got emotional. My argument made you realize that you didn't have an argument. You couldn't handle the fact that I was using a reasoned argument to destroy your argument. Deep down inside, you saw that I was wiping the floor with your arse.

Finally, you dropped hints that you wanted me to "drop it" and to either move on, or provide a reply that you could "stomach."

You banned me for emotional and ego reasons.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: 1. He wouldn't debate.

Wrong. I debated against you, and those that you supported, using a point by point rebuttal. Go back to that statement that I quoted above. If I refused to debate, I wouldn't have generated the responses that lead you to suggest that I cut down my replies.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: 2. Instead of debating, he tried to prove that I had made a straw man argument. I hadn't, but even if I had, the alleged straw man argument was utterly irrelevant to the discussion I was trying to have with him.

Do you see the contradiction in your own argument here? On one hand, you claim that I "wasn't" debating. In the next breath, you described a debate that we were having.

The reality is that we were debating more than one topic. As the thread progressed, we were arguing even more topics. I addressed you point by point, like what I'm doing here.

I debated you, and you know it. You refused to acknowledge it, because to acknowledge it would also mean that you acknowledge that you got destroyed in debate.

There is no, "tried," about this. I proved, using the strawman formula, that you advanced a strawman argument. Your first post on that thread was a strawman. Your description of what was going on was different from the quote that you linked to.

You failed to argue how that was "not" a strawman argument.

Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores: 3. I was on about day 4 or 5 of a cluster/migraine headache, and I simply wasn't interested in playing games with the Lobsterman.

That migraine wasn't there when you jumped in to support the argument/myth on that thread... a myth that a bunch of civilians "defeated" the U.S. Military. You didn't have that cluster/migraine headache as that thread progressed... you generated your replies to that thread.

If you had that cluster migraine headache, it didn't seem to bother you when you felt that things were going your way. It became an issue only when you ended up getting your arse handed to you on that thread.

Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores: Just throwing this out there, in case he happens to see it.

As you indicated above:

"He is on an anti-TTAWW page saying that I banned him because he beat me in a debate." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores

In the same post, it was obvious to the reader that Mac was reading what was being posted on that site.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: What happened was that someone else (a third person in the thread) HAD made a straw man argument, and I pointed it out. Lobsterman decided to play the white knight and basically twisted logic into a pretzel to show that I had made a straw man argument by accusing the other guy of having made one.

This is an example of "deflection," when the losing side deflects their own trait to the winning side. What am I talking about here?

Here's what you actually said in the other thread, in response to me:

"Also, this is a pretty magnificent straw man argument, since I've never suggested getting rid of the military and having no means or system of national/regional defense, but I'm totally used to straw man arguments FROM YOU people." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores (emphasis added)

You see, you were accusing me of advancing a strawman argument. Never mind that you said this first before I addressed it:

"...Yeah, that didn't work in Vietnam, did it? ... wait..." -- Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores

This was in support of the third person that you claimed "advanced a strawman argument":

"I wouldn't need a mall or regular cop if I was allowed to open carry everywhere. Wouldn't need to troops either. Civilians with More guns than most of the worlds armies? Yeah, try and invade." - Devan Robert Nelson

What was he responding to?

You posted a meme about a guy leading a 3 man "tac" team in the mall. You posted a caption right next to that photo. You talked about how this mall cop told you "civilians" that you guys didn't understand the risks that he went through.

That "third person" that you talked about, that you accuse of advancing a strawman, was responding to your statement. Both you guys touched on the theme of the utility of the mall cop. When the argument evolved into one about the utility of the troops, you jumped in... supporting the argument of the "third person."

Now, you left a link along with your commentary. This lead to another post that you made, quoting a "Mark". When you read that post, it said nothing about you guys being "softheaded". It said nothing about you guys "not understanding the risks" that mall cops went through.

Nope, it said something else.

That post talked about how you guys should explore the causes of war, and how you guys could get your message across without attacking the "humanoids" that were in the military. Nowhere in that quote did he berate you guys about being too "softheaded" and not understanding the risks that he goes through for you guys.

Your statement was a distorted version of the statement that you ultimately linked to. Hence, the first post that you generated was a strawman argument. This is something that you touched upon with your reply above.

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I wouldn't have banned him for it, except he went on and on and on and on about it. Every time I refreshed the page, he was going on about it some more, so I decided, "Fuck this guy."

Mac, you've been caught in another one of your lies. You're implying that I was spamming the thread. Your own words; however, disagree with you:

"I am not engaging in straw man fallacies, Joe and you are banned for lying." -- Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores

Proving someone wrong with their own words is like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limbs. :D

You stated, in simple terms, why you were banning me. Nowhere in that statement, nor in any of the statements made in that other thread, did you complain about me "spamming" your thread. Our actual arguments have been posted below.

Even when it comes to what you actually did, you openly lie.

Yes, you probably thought "fuck this guy," because you were getting your butt kicked. 

Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Mistakes Civilians for Military

Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores": "Of course, when I've told that story in the past, grunts will retort that they must have been POGs, or Air Force, or whatever, but I don't know what they were. 

There is legitimacy to that statement. Combat arms soldiers, which includes infantrymen, are required to go through combatives classes. Once they complete the course and get their basic certifications, they have combatives competitions during their training cycles.

These are informal competitions, were soldiers just have at it and wrestle each other. This usually happens on an impromptu basis provided that a soldier, certified to a higher level than the combatants, is present to supervise.

Now, your statement said that there were about two or three "Soldiers" there. Had the Soldiers been infantrymen, the guy that you talked about would've gotten his arse handed to him in front of his girlfriend. He more than likely would've ended up in the hospital.

They were being too nice about this when they said that these "Soldiers" could have been POGs, or Air Force. Since it's apparent that you didn't serve, there's a very good possibility that if this event actually did happen, those three people could've been very well nonmilitary.

Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores": There's no reason to assume they weren't Army grunts. 

This is one of your main problems. You're making assumptions based on your bias. Until you've actually served in the military, there's no way for you to figure out whether these people were actually in the Army, in the military, or were simply civilians.

Well, you might say, "These guys claimed that they were in the Army."

Given the presence of stolen valor sites, where veterans expose phony service members, there's a good chance that you can't tell the difference between "phony" and "real". If you had served for 10 years in the military, you'd be able to recall that event and say precisely what those guys were.

If you served for 10 years, like you claimed, and you're making that assumption, there's a good chance that you served those years in the reserves. During that time, you had no real active duty time outside of the training courses that you attended.

That's being nice about it.

You claim that you served. However, your comments here indicate that there's a good chance that you're making false claims about your being a veteran.

Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores: I can go to some of the bars I used to haunt when I was younger, throw a pebble into the crowd, and probably hit some drunk redneck who could beat the shit out of the average Army grunt.

Nowhere in your stories did you indicate that you investigated whether those people were in the military or not. Your litmus test here isn't sufficient to tell you whether you could hit somebody that could beat up a soldier.

However, there is a way to test this. Walk into one of the bars that you used to hunt. Toss a pebble into the crowd. Pull aside the person that the pebble hits. Invite him to go to an army base. Have him challenge one of the soldiers, engaged in combatives, to a fight.

I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people, that you identify as a redneck, would think that you're nuts. They'd probably kick your arse for being stupid enough to throw pebble on them.

If you had any real military experience, you wouldn't have doubts as to who those people were that harassed your friend's girlfriend. It'd be blatantly obvious whether they were military or not given your "military" experience.

You may not have had the military experience back then, but your follow-on military experience would've answered that question.

The fact that you're still guessing at this point, after that supposedly 10 years of service, argues strongly against your claims that you served for 10 years. Again, if you did serve those 10 years, it probably was strictly one weekend a month, two weeks a summer, and whatever course they had to send you two.

No real active duty experience. If you did serve in active duty, your best bet is to not even admit it. You actually make yourself come across as "that guy," the problem child, the incompetent, while "in" the service.