You're putting the cart before the horse my firend.  You know, you should come to conclusions from avalible evidence not use evidence to substantiate your conclusions.  Patton was one of the greatest generals this country ever had and that quote illustrates something about his being not to mention the fact that it does have a certain humor about it.  I honor and respect all those who have voluentered to defend this country with their lives.  However, I do not respect at all those who have used these brave men and women's selfless gift for their own personal gain.  Please, I can understand and respect criticism that stems from a diffirence in our opinions, but I cannot tolerate the bigiotry and sweeping generalization that you have just deomonstrated.  If you have a problem with the way I think, please, I'm perfectly happy to talk about it; but don't resort to personal attacks and baseless claims.

So what exactly do you think "Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his." means?  While I do not pretend to insinuate anything, I can assure you it doesn't mean sit at home and close your eyes to what is going on around you.  While you may believe (as your last response seemed to indicate) that this war is based upon lies I can assure you we have been at war with radical Islam since 1979 (when the Iranians stormed our Embassy and took our people hostage).  If you fail to recognize that then there is really nothing to discuss.


BTW Patton's admonition to not be foolish and die for your country was his way of saying to fight in a way that ensures the death of your enemy and not yourself.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Sorry.  I thought about it.  I can't do it.  I just don't have it in me.


Exercitus:

I apologize for suggesting that the things you've said are wrong.  

You will hear no more criticism from me.  You win.

Iraq was not a bastion of radical islam before we went in.  Afganistan was but we seemed to conviently forget about that once we invaded its neigbor (ish).  If we wanted to fight radical islam we should have invaded Saudi Arabia or Iran, not Iraq.  If we did that though we'd have our oil supply to think about, not to mention the international outcry the rest of the world's supply.


Why would you ask me a question and tell me the answer in the same breath? lol

I'll reply. Raising taxes on the "rich" will kill the economy. The evil, greedy rich oppressors, in case no one told you, provide the jobs. How many times does this lesson have to be repeated????? Tax CUTS put more money into the economy and the treasury. The oppressors invest their tax savings in their business ventures, so they can make more evil profit. This creates jobs.

Conversely, raising taxes stifles the economy. The people that the Great Society is purported to help suffer because of tax increases.

Now pay attention. Believe it or not, people who make less than $150K pay capital gains tax. Raise the capital gains tax rate and you hurt the people you claim to help.

I know the idiot has been banned but there are just so many factual problems that I felt compelled to mention a few. Obviously, he knows nothing of the history of Russia or the Soviet Union.  

Exercitus wrote:The USSR was created by a long and bloody civil war that killed millions of people, which was preceded by a long and bloody war that killed millions of people, which was preceded by a long and bloody monarchy that killed millions of people.  It's not supprising that they wanted something that would keep the few a the top from tramling on the masses allthough it became a dictatorship worse than the Tzars that hapened to also kill millions of people.  

The Tsars were in fact not notoriously bloodthirsty.  Ivan the Terrible was mad and was responsible for some gruesome atrocities but to claim that the Romanovs are guilty of slaughter on the scale of the Soviets is idiocy or Soviet propaganda.  The Romanovs never killed “millions.”  

Exercitus wrote:They were hardly a culture of drinking and lazing about.  They fought a world war losing millions of people.  They were forced to make great leaps of technology to keep up with US advances and had an industrial base far greater than our own.  They were innovative, tough and many in number.  

The Soviet industrial base never approached that of the USA.  Our economy and industrial base was always far larger than theirs.  Based on almost anyone’s statistics the Soviet GDP was never even 1/3rd as large as the American GDP at any point between 1960 and 1992.  

Exercitus wrote:The reason a person can work a 12 hour day and still come up short is tat $6 an hour (above the minimum wage) and 6 days per week worked a person only makes 20K per year 16K after taxes (20% it would probably be more like 17-18).  Now, now can a person live on that?  Most rentals are close to $1000 per month and even at half that one would only have 10K per year for everything else.  This person would have practically no joy in their life, just work, food, and sleep cable TV would even be a streching it.  

No more than 1.5% of all workers in America earn the minimum wage.  This includes workers who receive tips as part of their compensation.  53% of all workers earning less than $5.15 per hour (then the minimum wage) were between 16 and 24 years of age.  Virtually no families in America are supported by people working for the minimum wage.  It is a lie.  It has been disproven many times.  Everyone but Exercitus seems to know this.  (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm).

Exercitus demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about federal taxes in America.  A single person earning 20,000 a year would have paid $1,530 in taxes in 2002 and $1,480 in taxes under the Bush tax plan.  Their net income would have been $18,520.  Their gross monthly income would be $1,666.00.  An E-1 with 12 months of service earns 1,301.40 per month or $15,600 per year.  (http://www.army.com/money/payrates_enlisted_a07.html)

The mean rent for a two bedroom apartment in South Carolina is $600 a month.  It is $425 in Iowa.  Don’t know where Exercitus lives but it must be a pretty bizarre place where facts don’t exist.  

Exercitus wrote:Can you name one country that started socialist and went to a communist dictatorship? one? They all seem to go from bloody revolution to bloody government without any true socialist government in between.  The only socialist governments in the world (mostly in Europe) seem to be doing far better for their citizens than we are.  Think of taxes not as slave labor, if you don't want them you can allways move to Africa.  Think of them as membership costs, and you get what you pay for.  

Cuba is a thinly veiled dicatorship.  I personaly would go for one of the northern European counries (Denmark).

Technically, the Soviet Union never claimed to have achieved “true communism.”  Brezhnev always made speeches about that achievement being “a few years off.”  In fact, most of these “socialist republics” started off as dictatorships and stagnated right there with incredibly poor standards of living.  A few remarkable cases like Zimbabwe demonstrate how “socialism” and dictatorships can ruin one of the wealthiest African states in less than 30 years.  

Cuba, hardly a “thinly veiled dictatorship” is another excellent example of “socialism” combined with “merciless dictatorship” that turned one of the most robust Caribbean economies into a festering dung-heap within 20 years.  North Korea made the same remarkable achievement even less time.  Cambodia is another prime example of “socialist success!”  How many “thinly veiled” examples do we need?  

Frankly, if Exercitus’ model of paradise is Cuba then I would wish none of his utopian dreams on my worst enemies.  “Thinly veiled?”  Castro is one of the most murderous thugs to have ever ruled a nation.