this is why you dont fight a war without enough soldiers

[Ernie S.]

jesus your an idiot

 

[daveman]

then you should be for the wealthy paying for all they get from our system

They do. They also pay for what a lot of other people get from the system.

 

[daveman]

Heads up though, most wealthy people make money from wars, they don't lose the money helping to support the war effort.

I'm well aware of that too, Eisenhower made that painfully clear to everyone, however my point is that the American people in general rich and poor need to support any war this nation engages in, in terms of financial support as well as moral support. Now again this is just my humble opinion here, in doing so it enlists the American public into the War in such a way as to bring it to a quick conclusion. If for example the vast majority of the American public do not have much interest in the war other than save for the occasional news blurb then who cares how long it lasts other than the Military member or their family who has been deployed 5 or 6 times to combat or perhaps that wealthy person who is making the money off the deal. As far as the draft goes , I have mixed feelings on it, my first instinct is to say that a draft generally makes force readiness less effective because of the sheer amount of training needed for those who really do not want to be there. On the other hand, it engages a larger portion of the American public into the war effort and leads to a generally faster conclusion, with the exception of Viet-Nam. Again this is just a personal opinion, had the American public been more engaged in the Iraq war especially, I have a feeling it would not have lasted for as long as it did.

Actually, I believe it is our duty as citizens to criticize very heavily any act of hostility our country engages in.

Have you criticized any of Obama's acts of hostility?

Or are they different? Somehow?

 

[daveman]

New Photos Released of Iraq Atrocity, With Documents and Video | War Is A Crime .org


Bush NEVER allowed there to be a draft in the Iraq war.

He knew if he tried to draft Americans he could not have pulled off the lies about Sadam and AQ.

He fired generals for saying we didnt have enough troops to fight it.

Now we have to face what your right wing policy gave this country.

Never fight a war on the cheap

Now TM is a military strategist! Who knew?

lol:
​

She's a liberal. That means she's an expert in everything.

 

[Lovebears65]

Your team did it and trying to pretend it was the dems is the hieght of dishonesty.


It was YOUR party who did this

Stick a Kotex in your mouth, simpleton

You've been fucking owned.

She will never accept defeat but your funny as hell!! Rep for you

 

[Ernie S.]

When you have time to take your partisan glasses off and understand the nation is not made up of everyones a liberal who disagree's with you then perhaps you will begin to understand that the MONEY that those contractors are paid, and military personnel is borrowed money that has to be paid back. The point here is that is if this nation engages in war and at the same time cuts taxes on the American public they fail to engage the public in the war and put the burden of that war on the people who fight it, but I suppose thats ok that others do the fighting dying for you, as long as you get your tax cut.

Since the money has to be paid back, then the taxpayers are not going to escape from paying the debt. Your complaint is a non sequitur. All you're arguing about is how and when it gets paid back. Raising current taxes is one way. Cutting the swag that goes to welfare parasites is another.

Cutting taxes doesn't impose any additional burden on the people fighting the war. Raising taxes wouldn't necessarily have done a thing to benefit them. That's just a liberal propaganda ploy used to justify increasing taxes on the rich. Just about everything liberals say is a justification for increasing taxes on the rich, increasing government spending, and thereby increasing the benefits that flow to liberals.

The class warfare shit is just a ploy to buy votes. The mathematics behind it is politically solid.
If you tax 1 man $1,000,000 and redistribute it to 1,000 people at a grand apiece, you loose one vote and gain 1,000.
OK if you want to play that game, let's make it fair. Treat government as a corporation and give one share (vote) for every dollar you pay in taxes.

 

[daveman]

The wealthy get very little from "the system." Welfare turds get all the benefits, not rich people.

Do those rich people struggle to feed their children and pay for gas, or go in massive debt when they try to further their education?

Last I checked, no.

No they don't struggle. They pay for food and gasoline with money they actually earned. If you think layabouts should get more money, you are free to contribute as much as you want. Just don't expect me to reward laziness and stupid choices.
Charity is a choice. I have freely given about $8,000 in the last 6 months to a poor family here in Foley in return for odd jobs around my property that I could have done myself. I have provided shelter for a young woman who escaped a abusive relationship and just recently was able to save enough to get her own apartment.
These acts were my choice. I was not ordered to put out money and security by the government. I did, with my own resources, what you insist the nation do with the resources of all of us. How very magnanimous of you!

The left are very generous with other people's money.

 

[Sunshine]

Your team did it and trying to pretend it was the dems is the hieght of dishonesty.


It was YOUR party who did this

I am a registered Democrat. And I have no plan to change any time soon because KY has closed primaries and I want to continue to get to vote in the Democratic primary.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

TM must have hit the herb garden pretty good before this thread.

 

[rdean]

Here's the dirty little secret about a draft. Nobody really wants one. Not even the military. The military isn't ready for the trouble of having to discipline thousands of people who just don't want to be there to start with. They have enough trouble with people who want to be there.

The best argument I have ever heard against the draft was written by Ayn Rand:

"Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents 'involuntary servitude.'

"A volunteer army is the only proper, moral - and practical - way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes - if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army - an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why - is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.

"It is often asked, 'But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?' Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War l. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is on of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.

"Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Viet Nam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Edited by Harry Binswanger, pp 128-129.

Ayn Rand applied for and received Social Security. Even she didn't believe her own bullshit.

 

[Sunshine]

Here's the dirty little secret about a draft. Nobody really wants one. Not even the military. The military isn't ready for the trouble of having to discipline thousands of people who just don't want to be there to start with. They have enough trouble with people who want to be there.

The best argument I have ever heard against the draft was written by Ayn Rand:

"Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents 'involuntary servitude.'

"A volunteer army is the only proper, moral - and practical - way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes - if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army - an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why - is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.

"It is often asked, 'But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?' Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War l. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is on of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.

"Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Viet Nam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Edited by Harry Binswanger, pp 128-129.

Ayn Rand applied for and received Social Security. Even she didn't believe her own bullshit.

So you think the draft should be reinstated.

 

[tinydancer]

Your party lied about the war so they could spill American blood for oil.


You cheered like so many idiots

Blood for oil?

Canada, me, moi, my whole Rush team and Celine Dione AND Justin Bieber give you all you need.

KMA aka kiss my ass on the blood for oil grand kakakakakakaka.

I think Iraq is 7th these days.

In order, Canucks love you and we are number one.

Mexico is number two. Saudi Arabia is number three and Venezuela you know the fave of Bill Ayers and Chesa are after that.

Blood for oil? Show me. When did you invade Kapuskasing?

 

[rdean]

The PEOPLE have to have skin in the game so they can make sure all share the burden.

Let's apply that to the tax code and make 100% of the people pay taxes so that everybody has skin in the game.

100% of the people can't buy politicians to change the laws so what was illegal is now legal.

Oops.

 

[ba1614]

And here's what happens when you rev people up and then fuckoff without helping them.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iboFV-yeTE&feature=g-logo&context=G2b97a8dFOAAAAAAAAAA&skipcontrinter=1]‫[/ame]

 

[rdean]

The best argument I have ever heard against the draft was written by Ayn Rand:

"Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents 'involuntary servitude.'

"A volunteer army is the only proper, moral - and practical - way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes - if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army - an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why - is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.

"It is often asked, 'But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?' Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War l. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is on of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.

"Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Viet Nam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft."

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Edited by Harry Binswanger, pp 128-129.

Ayn Rand applied for and received Social Security. Even she didn't believe her own bullshit.

So you think the draft should be reinstated.

Of course. It never should have been stopped.

 

[Sunshine]

Your party lied about the war so they could spill American blood for oil.


You cheered like so many idiots

But you think we should have sent more American blood to be spilled. You said so in THIS thread! WTF are you smoking this morning? You must save something really special for Sundays!

 

[The Professor]

then you should be for the wealthy paying for all they get from our system

I am not sure what you mean by “our system.” If by that term you are referring to our system of government, I suggest you are on the right track, but not for the reasons you might assume. If you are implying that the wealthy need to pay more “for all they get from our system,” I must inform you of two indisputable facts: (1) the wealthy already pay a disproportionately higher amount of taxes;and they should pay more than they are paying if we want a system that is not third word and (2) most of them have made their fortunes in spite of our systembullshit, most of them inherited the money they started their business with and not because of it. I do believe, however, that those who benefit directly from government largesse (GMC, for example) have a greater debt to the government, while those who make it on their own are not so obligated.Pretending they would make it on their onw without police. fire, roads, bridges, schools, sewers, water dilivery systems, water treatment plants and all the massive planning and efforts each part of our government suplies is a lie.

One of the greatest liberal misconceptions is that government is responsible for all wealth.that is horseshit right wing talking points While it is true that some people have attained their wealth because of government intervention (usually involving some type of corruption), most have achieved success through their own hard work, fighting the government every step of the way.more right wing talking points

Let those who have gotten FROM our system (our government) contribute TO our system. I like that idea. of, for and by the people

Hey, I just got a wild thought (actually , it's a logical extension to your proposition): Let those who have given more to the government (in the form of taxes) receive more in benefits from the government, they already doand those who pay little or nothing receive little or nothing in return. yeah let those babies just starve I know you won't agree with that one, and actually I don't either. I am merely trying to make a point.

and your point is not connecting with reality.

The most prosperous times in our history involved Much higer taxes on the wealthy

Frankly, sir, I want no part of YOUR “reality.”

You claim that the wealthy receive the benefit of “police. fire, roads, bridges, schools, sewers, water dilivery (systems, water treatment plants and all the massive planning and efforts each part of our government suplies .” My response is: so what? Is it not a fact that even the “poor” receive the same government services....and more?”

Your initial claim was that the wealthy should be paying for all they get from our system. I merely pointed out that the wealthy are already paying much more in taxes (an undisputed fact) and getting less in return than the poor and middle class (another undisputed fact). Further, their wealth is not derived from the government but rather through their own efforts.

At your intellectual lever, you see that “police. fire, roads, bridges, schools, sewers, water dilivery (systems, water treatment plants and all the massive planning and efforts each part of our government suplies” are responsible for wealth. However, if that were true, then everyone who receives such services should be wealthy. In the REAL world, the accumulation of wealth requires much more than that.

Your unsupported claim that all wealthy people inherited their fortunes is quite hilarious. I truly regret that you cannot comprehend the role that hard work and initiative play in one's success.

I will give you the last word. You are convinced that the world owes you a living and no one is going to change your mind.

 

[rdean]

Your party lied about the war so they could spill American blood for oil.


You cheered like so many idiots

Blood for oil?

Canada, me, moi, my whole Rush team and Celine Dione AND Justin Bieber give you all you need.

KMA aka kiss my ass on the blood for oil grand kakakakakakaka.

I think Iraq is 7th these days.

In order, Canucks love you and we are number one.

Mexico is number two. Saudi Arabia is number three and Venezuela you know the fave of Bill Ayers and Chesa are after that.

Blood for oil? Show me. When did you invade Kapuskasing?

Last time I looked, Canada was still a foreign country. Why are Republicans determined to give American money to foreign countries? Either they only want to buy from foreign countries, or they want to blow them up so they can spend American money rebuilding them. But they won't build this country up. That would be "socialism".

 

[ba1614]

Your party lied about the war so they could spill American blood for oil.


You cheered like so many idiots

Blood for oil?

Canada, me, moi, my whole Rush team and Celine Dione AND Justin Bieber give you all you need.

KMA aka kiss my ass on the blood for oil grand kakakakakakaka.

I think Iraq is 7th these days.

In order, Canucks love you and we are number one.

Mexico is number two. Saudi Arabia is number three and Venezuela you know the fave of Bill Ayers and Chesa are after that.

Blood for oil? Show me. When did you invade Kapuskasing?

Last time I looked, Canada was still a foreign country. Why are Republicans determined to give American money to foreign countries? Either they only want to buy from foreign countries, or they want to blow them up so they can spend American money rebuilding them. But they won't build this country up. That would be "socialism".

You honestly don't see the difference in purchasing oil from Canada, from states that sponsor terrorism?

 

[daveman]

Last time I looked, Canada was still a foreign country. Why are Republicans determined to give American money to foreign countries? Either they only want to buy from foreign countries, or they want to blow them up so they can spend American money rebuilding them. But they won't build this country up. That would be "socialism".

We have to buy oil from foreign countries because the left refuses to allow us to use our own resources.

The left is responsible for our dependence on foreign energy.