I was agreeing with you, and taking it one step beyond by reminding anyone who thinks that we are spreading "freedom" that they are fuckin idiots.

Fish on...

Todd

Right, because there is no draft. They volunteer. A neighbor of mine, came back and went to work for a construction company making great money and all he talked about was going back to the ME in 2006. You don't solve the poverty problem by sending kids overseas. You solve it by graduating, not doing drugs and not letting them date and shack up with Aholes twice their age. You don't make it easier for fathers to leave the family and substitute government. But that is what progressives do. They are so smart, they have to solve every problem and as long as they end up in charge, its collateral damage. But its not your fault, its always someone elses fault. Even guys who have yet to win the Whitehouse.

Suppose we instituted a defense/war tax on imported oil... Say that tax FUNDED the ME defense budgets (vs roads, which the $0.50 tax does now)... Gas would be near $8 a gallon... Which would certainly cause changes in the economy...

But let's say we -- at the same time -- gave a sizable tax break to everyone in the same amount of a normal persons usage of gas. Let's say $3000/person... So in the end, most people would end up vaguely even...

a) suddenly alternative energy/fuels would be much more attractive, becuase they'd be price competitive.

b) we'd MUCH more rapidly become energy independent, because domestic oil and alternative sources would be viable.

It does seem by having subsidized gasoline we are kind of perpetuating the problem... I'm sure there are tons of problems with this logic (including the obvious impact on the transportation sector) but wouldn't something like this make some sense?

It's not a problem for Big Oil, it's perpetuating the profits...which is why we will continue to subsidize them, while they keep us addicted to oil...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. FnF, the more you write, the more it's obvious that you are as ignorant as a rock, and a stupid rock at that. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews, there's an actual world out there, full of stuff like "reality"...you could use it.

How comforting, you understand my plight. You may now go fishing.

FnF, I invited you on another thread to join the "reality based" world...I know it's about as far away and as foreign as Pluto for right wing dumbasses, but the world would be a far better place if they were to ever get there.

Fish on...

Todd

How the hell do you know, what families TJ knows. He could know one person and make that statement.
The guy hasn't even been elected yet and you want to judge his kids for not serving. What makes you so special?
I've worked for several Mormon families and they know the value, all kids have to their parents. Show me in the Constitution where it mandates military service?

As a veteran that served honorably I did not meet one guy in that was from a very wealthy family and I think this is part of what Todd is saying.

Some of the only options for younger people without financial means is to enlist and get an education or training through our military, something families with money do not have to worry about.

Fishy

Being an officer means that you already have a degree which broadens your range of options, unless they earned their commission in the field or are a warrant officer.

Fishy

Hank,

Of course the economy is a national interest. And yes, we do use our military to protect both the national interest and the interest of select multi-national corporations. I think we should not. Because we do, we have encouraged by subsidizing the development of the global economy at great cost, socially and economically to our domestic national interest. Like Todd posted, if the oil companies want security for their overseas business interests, let them hire it. This would reveal the actual cost of ME oil, and in and of itself provide incentive for US energy independence.

I do support national energy independence. You might be old enough to remember WA Senator Scoop Jackson, who as a result of the 1973 Arab oil embargo advocated national energy independence. He was one of the most powerful members of the Senate, and it seemed like there was a lot of momentum at the time to head down that path, as there have several times since then. Yet it never happens. Do you wonder why? I do, and I'm convinced that energy independence is not in the interest of the multi-national oil companies, and those companies have the clout to steer the federal gov't. in whatever direction they wish, which is to continue to import subsidized ME oil because it's more profitable for them than an energy independent US would be. What are your thought's on the matter?

T. Joad,

Pay attention and you'll see that I'm quite agreeable where logic and justice are the objectives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting regarding military demographics. I was under the impression that the all-volunteer military over-represented the poor and minority demographic, just as it did during the draft.

Todd,

Why even egage with FnF? As KK would say, not a lot of mental furniture there.

Sg

What a dumba$$ thing to say. Only poor serve?????? You can not be that stupid. I guess you said it so you likely are. I guess that is what passes as the normal thinking in latte' land.

I come from middle class family and most of my buddies did as well. All those I know and there are many many including brothers and sisters that served did so because that was the way we were brought up. Friends were the same. Most of us grew up on ranches and farms where we worked from the time we were old enough to chase cows and buck hay. We were mostly anti-govern but very very patriotic.

I guess when you come from liberal land you only serve if you are poor and have no options. But in rural America and there is a lot of rural america out there you serve because your parents/uncle/grandparents/brothers/sisters/freinds did.

F-u citiot loosers who veiw all those that grew up the way I did and volunteered to serve with such distain.

Docspud,

You responding to my post? If so, please re-read. I most emphatically did not say that ONLY the poor served. Rather, the poor and minorities serve in the military in a proportion higher than their demographic in US society over-all. I'll give you credit for being smart enough to understand what that means until I see otherwise. In case you don't, it means that while blacks make up about 12% of the US population, the military consists of more than 12% black service members. And the wealthiest 1% of Americans serves at considerably less than 1% of all service members, etc. That's not so hard, is it?

Sg

no, he was not responding to you, Salmo.

Another green company bites the dust. [Re: AuntyM]

Docspud, I would say you have Aunty wrong. No doubt, shell get around to you.

Definitely not you salmo. Not AM either. Mostly BWP and stink. Todd I have heard enough from to think he knows better but likes to troll.

1. “American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high-school degree , compared to 21 percent of men 18 to 24 years old [in the general population].”
2. “Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in the military service.”
3. “The facts do not support the belief that many American soldiers volunteer because society offers them few opportunities. The average enlisted person or officer could have had lucrative career opportunities in the private sector.”