Massachusetts Law Professor Calls Care Packages for U.S. Troops 'Shameful' Read more

[del]

I'm sorry, but I insist. It was not the men making wars that guaranteed the constitution. Clever leaders and an open minded people, tired of the old world's opression, did it. Wars can only kill democracy. Remember the napoleonic wars. The french revolution was already starting to sink... when the wars started, the republican revolution was destroyed and buried. USA has what is necessary to ensure freedom. There are no needs for wars.

Bush Senior and Bush Junior are the only two republicans to ever take this country to war, the rest where all democrats. So dont act like it's warmongering republicans that have done it throughout time.
Also, you are wrong in one aspect of thought, had it not been for Americas men and woman putting on the uniform this country would have died many years ago through invasion or even worse, from within by crooked politicians, Remember the oath "Defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC"?.
So yes, by serving they protect that constitution and our liberties and always have.
Willow, from one Vet to another...tell your grandson thank you for his service.

Lincoln was a democrat?

Good to know.

ft sumter fired on charleston?

good to know

 

[del]

Maddow was completely correct. And it's a shame you guys can't put aside your partisanship to see that.

I generally don't care for Rachel Maddow because her style annoys me. But she often is quite correct and this is one of those times. The Professor is right, too, and the only possible arguments against his position are rooted in rabid, pseudo-patriotic fanaticism.

As a protester of the Vietnam debacle I frequently was subjected to the same kind of "Marxist" and "un-American" insults, along with all the nonsense that goes with that kind of ignorant, blindly chauvinistic reasoning. But after 58,000 dead, hundreds of thousands more maimed and disfigured and enough wasted treasure to educate a hundred generations, the final outcome has been realization and admission that it was a big mistake. There was no need for us to be there. The fighting in Vietnam did not, nor could it, benefit the U.S. in any way. It was entirely without valid purpose.

One major difference between our armed presence in Vietnam and our armed presence in the Middle East is most of the troops in Vietnam were conscripted but all of those who are being wasted in the Middle East volunteered. And those who truly believed their service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan has anything to do with preserving America's freedom are either deluded, or are stupid, or simply need to justify their action. The fact is except for the benefits accruing to certain corporate interests, with emphasis on the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, there is no identifiable reason for our troops to be killing and dying in the Middle East.

This is not World War Two, so anyone who has had the idea pumped into his/her brain by corporate propaganda machinery that the troops in the Middle East are defending our freedom needs to do a little reading. And I suggest they start with a book by former Marine Corps General "Chesty" Puller, called War Is A Racket! It is a good beginning of an essential education and it's available from Amazon.

As for those who are wrapped in flags and carrying crosses and will attack what I've had to say here, I'm telling you in advance to go to the same hell to which you happily consign young Americans with your imaginary "wars." They aren't wars, they are capitalist adventures which have absolutely nothing to do with preserving freedom or protecting America.

Smarten up and stop jerking yourselves and each other off.

most of the troops in viet nam had enlisted voluntarily.

smedley butler wrote war is a racket, not chesty puller.

this professor, like you, is perfectly within his rights to show his ass like the scum sucking vermin that he is.




fuck off and have a pleasant tomorrow.

elsewhere

 

[Toro]

A Massachusetts law professor has created a campus firestorm with an email to colleagues that declares it would be "shameful" to send care packages to U.S. troops "who have gone overseas to kill other human beings."
Michael Avery, a professor at Suffolk University Law School, sent a five-paragraph email to colleagues in response to a school-wide appeal for care packages for deployed soldiers, Fox affiliate WFXT-TV reports.
"I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings," Avery wrote.


Read more: Massachusetts Law Professor Calls Care Packages For U.S. Troops 'Shameful' | Fox News











He should go fuck himself.

Yes.

He should.

 

[Ravi]

I disagree with the guy but perhaps he is a true pacifist?
Jesus never encouraged/endorsed anyone to kill another.
A few in the world would let someone kill them before they would take a life to defend themselves.
just a few. Thankfully.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

But fauxrage is always more tasty, isn't it?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have served in a war zone, have you? I speak from experience, do you? While I agree, we have done all that we could do and need to bring the troops home, I also understand that you cannot let 3000 Americans be murdered without a devastating response to the enemy. The only person in this room jerking anybody off is you.

You "served in a war zone?" What exactly does that mean? You were in World War Two? Because that happens to be the last time America was at war. But if you mean you found yourself in a place in the Middle East where people were killing each other my question to you is why did you sign up to go there? My thinking holds that ever since the Vietnam debacle was foisted on America by its corrupt and incompetent government the only acceptable reason to enlist in the military is when the nation is under direct and immediate threat.

I joined the Marine Corps in 1956 for two reasons; I was 1-A (draft eligible) and would have been called up anyway, plus the ethos of the heroism and sacrifice of WW-II was still fresh in the collective memory of America. I truly believed the only reason I would be placed in harm's way would be defense against an aggressive nation -- and I was ready and willing to serve that purpose.

Luckily I was separated and my inactive reserve obligation expired before the Vietnam adventure started. I realized from the start it was unnecessary and I became an active protester. I was right then and I'm right now.

If you feel you are entitled to some special recognition or gratitude for allowing yourself to be used by a excessively militaristic and corporatist government the only thing I can say is you're lucky if you came home with all your parts.

A war zone is defined by a place where hostilities can be expected to happen. Matter of fact, if you serve in a war zone, several things happen........first, your pay is tax free, and, depending on the zone, sometimes you are entitled to hostile fire pay.

Beruit in 1983, Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, as well as Kosovo were all considered war zones by the military, as I had to type up the paperwork to get the entire crew tax free pay.

Even processed some SRB checks for people who reenlisted while we were there.

 

[GoneBezerk]

He is the typical scumbag liberal.

I would point out in his face that my friends that served in Iraq and Afghanistan killed less people than his idol, Ted the drunk Kennedy.

 

[Si modo]

I'm sorry, but I insist. It was not the men making wars that guaranteed the constitution. Clever leaders and an open minded people, tired of the old world's opression, did it. Wars can only kill democracy. Remember the napoleonic wars. The french revolution was already starting to sink... when the wars started, the republican revolution was destroyed and buried. USA has what is necessary to ensure freedom. There are no needs for wars.

Having a strong military is a deterrent from any pissant country from say, South America, even thinking about invading our country and/or changing our way of government and Constitution.

South America? hahahahahahaha What are u talking about. South America use to have its own problems and wouldn't surely be even close to invade USA. Besides, there are no wars in South America. The problem is South America is another.

But I agree that a country must have a strong military force, so that no one would want to invade it. But we all know that it doesn't work this way. Strong armies all over Europe started two massive wars. I think this is why they're always affraid.

You must have a big army, but u don't need to use it to invade countries from the other side of the world and tell them what they need to do. If there is a country that accepts slavery, so, according to USA, they are a free nation, so they have freedom to have slaves. Funny eh?

You are confused by my use of the phrase "for example". Funny how the simplest things throw so many for a loop.

You asked a question; I answered it. A strong military is a deterrent from foreign enemies to our Constitution.

 

[marcell]

Having a strong military is a deterrent from any pissant country from say, South America, even thinking about invading our country and/or changing our way of government and Constitution.

South America? hahahahahahaha What are u talking about. South America use to have its own problems and wouldn't surely be even close to invade USA. Besides, there are no wars in South America. The problem is South America is another.

But I agree that a country must have a strong military force, so that no one would want to invade it. But we all know that it doesn't work this way. Strong armies all over Europe started two massive wars. I think this is why they're always affraid.

You must have a big army, but u don't need to use it to invade countries from the other side of the world and tell them what they need to do. If there is a country that accepts slavery, so, according to USA, they are a free nation, so they have freedom to have slaves. Funny eh?

You are confused by my use of the phrase "for example". Funny how the simplest things throw so many for a loop.

You asked a question; I answered it. A strong military is a deterrent from foreign enemies to our Constitution.

Yeah, I know, the bigger the country is, a better army is needed. But this is the question: Who is the enemy?

 

[AmericanFirst]

South America? hahahahahahaha What are u talking about. South America use to have its own problems and wouldn't surely be even close to invade USA. Besides, there are no wars in South America. The problem is South America is another.

But I agree that a country must have a strong military force, so that no one would want to invade it. But we all know that it doesn't work this way. Strong armies all over Europe started two massive wars. I think this is why they're always affraid.

You must have a big army, but u don't need to use it to invade countries from the other side of the world and tell them what they need to do. If there is a country that accepts slavery, so, according to USA, they are a free nation, so they have freedom to have slaves. Funny eh?

You are confused by my use of the phrase "for example". Funny how the simplest things throw so many for a loop.

You asked a question; I answered it. A strong military is a deterrent from foreign enemies to our Constitution.

Yeah, I know, the bigger the country is, a better army is needed. But this is the question: Who is the enemy?

Obamaturd and the socialists.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Are you that fucking stupid? Spend less time finding women pics on the internet to jack off on and educate yourself.

Let's see, the enemies out there are....Al Qaeda among numerous islamic terrorist groups from Africa to Asia, North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. Venezuela is an enemy from their antics, but they are like you making threats to people on the playground, just a big-mouth but with less money than them.

South America? hahahahahahaha What are u talking about. South America use to have its own problems and wouldn't surely be even close to invade USA. Besides, there are no wars in South America. The problem is South America is another.

But I agree that a country must have a strong military force, so that no one would want to invade it. But we all know that it doesn't work this way. Strong armies all over Europe started two massive wars. I think this is why they're always affraid.

You must have a big army, but u don't need to use it to invade countries from the other side of the world and tell them what they need to do. If there is a country that accepts slavery, so, according to USA, they are a free nation, so they have freedom to have slaves. Funny eh?

You are confused by my use of the phrase "for example". Funny how the simplest things throw so many for a loop.

You asked a question; I answered it. A strong military is a deterrent from foreign enemies to our Constitution.

Yeah, I know, the bigger the country is, a better army is needed. But this is the question: Who is the enemy?

 

[marcell]

marcell, look Wars in general a mean nasty business and the best War ever fought was the one you avoided and spent a career trying to avoid. My contention is a simple one, the young men and women who fight them, especially now, are people who make a decision on their own to do so and as such it is no indication that they love the idea of killing but more so the idea that to defend liberty and vigilence in the defense of those who cannot defend themselves helps avoid war and eventually leads to peace.To send a package to a love one, or those that are for the most part defending the liberties that those enjoy is not an overt act of supporting war it is acknowledging that the person you are sending the care package too is taking on the burden with their life and limb of keeping the nation in which you live safe. You see, the generation of sailor, soldier, airmen, and marine, that is currently invloved in conflict the world over is different in that the nations that send them there are for the most part not involved other than the familes of the members that are there. Take our nation for instance, we have cut our taxes over the last 10 years while fighting 2 wars not raised them nor do we have a draft, so the nation as a whole has no connection to the young men and women defending it. The simple act of sending a care package is not an endorsement of the act of war rather it is finally taking part in supporting those that defend it even if the reasons they are there are something you and I may not agree with.

Ok, I got it. Send some packages and that stuff would make them happier, I guess. But there would be a better way to avoid this kinda situation: getting out of middle east. Leaving them alone. Then USA can use its own soldiers to defend USA's lands. I know that it's hard for the soldiers. But we can't say that they are saving american people. Most of them are compelled to go to war. The politicians are the ones that should go and fight the wars they start.

But it all should start with american people protesting against these wars, that doesn't give anything to you.

Honey, you can't even get sig pics to work. Why the hell would anyone take the rest of your bullshit seriously.

You clearly lack the IQ required to post with grown ups. Might I suggest you head to the Romper Room and play with Rdean?

Tricky Bitch, you're a deep fountain of ignorance. I saw your posts. Why don't you enlist to the army and go there, to die for your pride? You're smart enough to talk. But you stand still with your this fat ass, swearing. So go study something about history and, maybe, if you can, learn about the rest of the world, and even about your country's army. If you're a grown up, I preffer to stay as a kid. Thanks!

 

[marcell]

Are you that fucking stupid? Spend less time finding women pics on the internet to jack off on and educate yourself.

Let's see, the enemies out there are....Al Qaeda among numerous islamic terrorist groups from Africa to Asia, North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. Venezuela is an enemy from their antics, but they are like you making threats to people on the playground, just a big-mouth but with less money than them.

You are confused by my use of the phrase "for example". Funny how the simplest things throw so many for a loop.

You asked a question; I answered it. A strong military is a deterrent from foreign enemies to our Constitution.

Yeah, I know, the bigger the country is, a better army is needed. But this is the question: Who is the enemy?

About the women pics... is it about my avatar? If it is, this is not an internet girl. This is a "prefesional". If it is about the pic I posted before... so I ask you: Are u fucking stupid? Take a look again. It's a trick.

Oh yeah, Al Qaeda is one enemy. Right. Have u asked yourself about the reason why Al Qaeda became an enemy? They're enemies just because they don't like americans? And about the terrorist stuff... well, yeah, it's sad to see that there are terrorists. But terrorists are people that kills the innocent civil population. Well, you tell they're terrorists, they say that USA are terrorists. If you think twice, both are right and both are wrong. They go there and kill some civilians, then USA goes there and kills some civilians too... Wouldn't it be better to stop, so there would be no more terrorists?

USA will only have problems with Russia if the gov keep troops and install radars on east Europe (Dimitri Medvedev, with Sergey Lavrov, already warned... no one paid attention, so they went to Georgia - 1 day war)

With China... well I think the main dispute with China is commercial. USA needs to invest more in technology and social stability, than in wars (I mean MUCH more).

About North Korea, well, if USA leaves North Korea alone, they won't do anything. They barely have resources to invest on their people. But their army is big and they have nuclear weapons. It's just not to mess with them.

And Iran... Iran is much more a problem to Israel. They can't fight a war against USA.

Venezuela... pfffff... I've been there. They have barracks all over the country. But they're not a risk.

USA can deal with all these enemies, without a shot. The gov can spare the lives of the soldiers and the lives of thousands of civilians, victims of the war. I remembered a video, where an american helicopter shot a car with children and a hurt man, that was being rescued. An american soldier could not deal with this and went there to rescue everyone. He was punished... don't u think that the people there will hate even to hear "USA"?

About my education... it's good, thank you for worrying about it. Now try to speak to someone that is not from USA or England. Try some pakistani, hindu... an egyptian, maybe. They are people, just like you.

 

[MikeK]

Maddow was completely correct. And it's a shame you guys can't put aside your partisanship to see that.

I generally don't care for Rachel Maddow because her style annoys me. But she often is quite correct and this is one of those times. The Professor is right, too, and the only possible arguments against his position are rooted in rabid, pseudo-patriotic fanaticism.

As a protester of the Vietnam debacle I frequently was subjected to the same kind of "Marxist" and "un-American" insults, along with all the nonsense that goes with that kind of ignorant, blindly chauvinistic reasoning. But after 58,000 dead, hundreds of thousands more maimed and disfigured and enough wasted treasure to educate a hundred generations, the final outcome has been realization and admission that it was a big mistake. There was no need for us to be there. The fighting in Vietnam did not, nor could it, benefit the U.S. in any way. It was entirely without valid purpose.

One major difference between our armed presence in Vietnam and our armed presence in the Middle East is most of the troops in Vietnam were conscripted but all of those who are being wasted in the Middle East volunteered. And those who truly believed their service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan has anything to do with preserving America's freedom are either deluded, or are stupid, or simply need to justify their action. The fact is except for the benefits accruing to certain corporate interests, with emphasis on the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, there is no identifiable reason for our troops to be killing and dying in the Middle East.

This is not World War Two, so anyone who has had the idea pumped into his/her brain by corporate propaganda machinery that the troops in the Middle East are defending our freedom needs to do a little reading. And I suggest they start with a book by former Marine Corps General "Chesty" Puller, called War Is A Racket! It is a good beginning of an essential education and it's available from Amazon.

As for those who are wrapped in flags and carrying crosses and will attack what I've had to say here, I'm telling you in advance to go to the same hell to which you happily consign young Americans with your imaginary "wars." They aren't wars, they are capitalist adventures which have absolutely nothing to do with preserving freedom or protecting America.

Smarten up and stop jerking yourselves and each other off.

most of the troops in viet nam had enlisted voluntarily.

smedley butler wrote war is a racket, not chesty puller.

this professor, like you, is perfectly within his rights to show his ass like the scum sucking vermin that he is.

fuck off and have a pleasant tomorrow.

elsewhere

Thank you for the corrections. But you're still a brainwashed idiot.

 

[del]

I generally don't care for Rachel Maddow because her style annoys me. But she often is quite correct and this is one of those times. The Professor is right, too, and the only possible arguments against his position are rooted in rabid, pseudo-patriotic fanaticism.

As a protester of the Vietnam debacle I frequently was subjected to the same kind of "Marxist" and "un-American" insults, along with all the nonsense that goes with that kind of ignorant, blindly chauvinistic reasoning. But after 58,000 dead, hundreds of thousands more maimed and disfigured and enough wasted treasure to educate a hundred generations, the final outcome has been realization and admission that it was a big mistake. There was no need for us to be there. The fighting in Vietnam did not, nor could it, benefit the U.S. in any way. It was entirely without valid purpose.

One major difference between our armed presence in Vietnam and our armed presence in the Middle East is most of the troops in Vietnam were conscripted but all of those who are being wasted in the Middle East volunteered. And those who truly believed their service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan has anything to do with preserving America's freedom are either deluded, or are stupid, or simply need to justify their action. The fact is except for the benefits accruing to certain corporate interests, with emphasis on the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, there is no identifiable reason for our troops to be killing and dying in the Middle East.

This is not World War Two, so anyone who has had the idea pumped into his/her brain by corporate propaganda machinery that the troops in the Middle East are defending our freedom needs to do a little reading. And I suggest they start with a book by former Marine Corps General "Chesty" Puller, called War Is A Racket! It is a good beginning of an essential education and it's available from Amazon.

As for those who are wrapped in flags and carrying crosses and will attack what I've had to say here, I'm telling you in advance to go to the same hell to which you happily consign young Americans with your imaginary "wars." They aren't wars, they are capitalist adventures which have absolutely nothing to do with preserving freedom or protecting America.

Smarten up and stop jerking yourselves and each other off.

most of the troops in viet nam had enlisted voluntarily.

smedley butler wrote war is a racket, not chesty puller.

this professor, like you, is perfectly within his rights to show his ass like the scum sucking vermin that he is.

fuck off and have a pleasant tomorrow.

elsewhere

Thank you for the corrections. But you're still a brainwashed idiot.

any time, putz

 

[marcell]

Maddow was completely correct. And it's a shame you guys can't put aside your partisanship to see that.

I generally don't care for Rachel Maddow because her style annoys me. But she often is quite correct and this is one of those times. The Professor is right, too, and the only possible arguments against his position are rooted in rabid, pseudo-patriotic fanaticism.

As a protester of the Vietnam debacle I frequently was subjected to the same kind of "Marxist" and "un-American" insults, along with all the nonsense that goes with that kind of ignorant, blindly chauvinistic reasoning. But after 58,000 dead, hundreds of thousands more maimed and disfigured and enough wasted treasure to educate a hundred generations, the final outcome has been realization and admission that it was a big mistake. There was no need for us to be there. The fighting in Vietnam did not, nor could it, benefit the U.S. in any way. It was entirely without valid purpose.

One major difference between our armed presence in Vietnam and our armed presence in the Middle East is most of the troops in Vietnam were conscripted but all of those who are being wasted in the Middle East volunteered. And those who truly believed their service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan has anything to do with preserving America's freedom are either deluded, or are stupid, or simply need to justify their action. The fact is except for the benefits accruing to certain corporate interests, with emphasis on the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, there is no identifiable reason for our troops to be killing and dying in the Middle East.

This is not World War Two, so anyone who has had the idea pumped into his/her brain by corporate propaganda machinery that the troops in the Middle East are defending our freedom needs to do a little reading. And I suggest they start with a book by former Marine Corps General "Chesty" Puller, called War Is A Racket! It is a good beginning of an essential education and it's available from Amazon.

As for those who are wrapped in flags and carrying crosses and will attack what I've had to say here, I'm telling you in advance to go to the same hell to which you happily consign young Americans with your imaginary "wars." They aren't wars, they are capitalist adventures which have absolutely nothing to do with preserving freedom or protecting America.

Smarten up and stop jerking yourselves and each other off.

The voice of the reason!

 

[MikeK]

A war zone is defined by a place where hostilities can be expected to happen. Matter of fact, if you serve in a war zone, several things happen........first, your pay is tax free, and, depending on the zone, sometimes you are entitled to hostile fire pay.

Beruit in 1983, Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, as well as Kosovo were all considered war zones by the military, as I had to type up the paperwork to get the entire crew tax free pay.

Even processed some SRB checks for people who reenlisted while we were there.

Biker/Sailor,

Thank you for the serious (and informative) reply to my sarcastic question.

I have often heard the term "war" applied to Vietnam but I, along with most people of my generation, find it misleading. Because while the United States was sending its sons and brothers into that country on an aggressive and wasteful military adventure the United States was by no means at "war." Unlike the circumstances of WW-II, which affected everyone in a number of ways, regardless of what happened in Vietnam this nation was in absolutely no danger of attack by the Vietnamese. So, except for those at risk of losing a relative or a close friend there, the Vietnam "conflict" was to most Americans an abstract occurrence which, aside from tax concerns, had no effect whatsoever on their lives.

The tragedy of the Vietnam debacle is manifest in those Americans who died there and those who came home maimed and/or disfigured for absolutely no good reason. That tragedy is very plainly documented in Ron Kovic's book, and in the movie, Born on The Fourth of July. I often wonder how many, if any, of those young men, and now young women, who have enlisted in the Army or Marines in recent years had read that book or seen the movie. It would be interesting to know their motivation.

I really would like to know if members of this generation who would enlist in the Army or Marines, knowing they probably will be sent to the Middle East, truly believe they will be serving their country. I would like to understand how they have that worked out in their minds.

 

[Unkotare]

[

I don't think I understood it well. Freedom guaranteed by war? Maybe I understood it wrong. Correct me if I did. Vietnam Helped on USA's freedom? Iraq and Afghanistan helped on USA's freedom? Did any nation (since the WW 2) attacked the american territory? The answer is NO. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan: 3 wars that no one understands. Going out of USA and killing people, to get territories, oil or military access... does it guarantee freedom for anyone? Well, we can tell tha it guarantees disgraces for local populations.

So, you are:

A) Ignorant
B) Stupid
C) Myopic

So you got that goin' for ya.



Why don't you take a trip to MA, find that asswipe professor and rent a nice room where the two of you can watch while you each fuck yourselves.

 

[likeabird03]

These are the kind of people educating our youth - no wonder Obama got elected, and we're drifting towards a socialist state. I hope this ivory tower collapses because hacks like this guy won't survive one day trying to make it in the real world.

 

[Unkotare]

[

Oh yeah, Al Qaeda is one enemy. Right. Have u asked yourself about the reason why Al Qaeda became an enemy? They're enemies just because they don't like americans? And about the terrorist stuff... well, yeah, it's sad to see that there are terrorists. But terrorists are people that kills the innocent civil population. Well, you tell they're terrorists, they say that USA are terrorists. If you think twice, both are right and both are wrong. They go there and kill some civilians, then USA goes there and kills some civilians too... Wouldn't it be better to stop, so there would be no more terrorists?

USA will only have problems with Russia if the gov keep troops and install radars on east Europe (Dimitri Medvedev, with Sergey Lavrov, already warned... no one paid attention, so they went to Georgia - 1 day war)

With China... well I think the main dispute with China is commercial. USA needs to invest more in technology and social stability, than in wars (I mean MUCH more).

About North Korea, well, if USA leaves North Korea alone, they won't do anything. They barely have resources to invest on their people. But their army is big and they have nuclear weapons. It's just not to mess with them.

And Iran... Iran is much more a problem to Israel. They can't fight a war against USA.

Venezuela... pfffff... I've been there. They have barracks all over the country. But they're not a risk.

USA can deal with all these enemies, without a shot. The gov can spare the lives of the soldiers and the lives of thousands of civilians, victims of the war. I remembered a video, where an american helicopter shot a car with children and a hurt man, that was being rescued. An american soldier could not deal with this and went there to rescue everyone. He was punished... don't u think that the people there will hate even to hear "USA"?

About my education... it's good, thank you for worrying about it. Now try to speak to someone that is not from USA or England. Try some pakistani, hindu... an egyptian, maybe. They are people, just like you.

What an arrogant, ignorant, presumptuous little lame brain you are. You very probably don't appreciate just how lucky you are that a dope like you has the luxury of depending upon your betters to assure your security and protect your freedom to spew utter nonsense like that above.

 

[MikeK]

These are the kind of people educating our youth - no wonder Obama got elected, and we're drifting towards a socialist state. I hope this ivory tower collapses because hacks like this guy won't survive one day trying to make it in the real world.

It seems these vacuous laments and empty ad hominem nonsense is all you right-wing onanists are capable of. Not a substantive thought from the lot of you. Just insults and oblique, pointless, partisan references.

Inasmuch as this is a discussion forum, not a schoolyard, how about telling us what you're upset about and what you disagree with. Think you can do that like an intelligent grown-up?

Suggestion: Considering the present condition of American society, the potential economic collapse and the reason for it, why do you suppose drifting in the direction of socialism is a bad thing? What is it about socialist policies that worries you so? Are you among the One Percent? Or have Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly taken control of what once was a middle class mind?