Lefty

You had me up until "at republican owned companies." Then everything just got silly. Do you really think most business owners are Dems? Kind of an irrelevant question. We're discussing who hires the illegals, not which party's members are more intrepid and successful (at business, anyway). Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You had me up until "at republican owned companies." Then everything just got silly. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I can definitely respect that. As proof, I will state right here and now that John Edwards does not deserve to have his tax rate disproportionately jacked up just because he is now part of the "evil rich" class. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Right on. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You could start by saying "Man, I should go bone up on my political science." Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

What a silly little country. Although, does it say more about us when we don't even have as much common sense as they do regarding driver's license laws? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

This is an active debate (not the 'social experiment' part) but on what is the role of the military in the 21st Century beyond winning wars. My favorite DoD Directive 3000.05 -- doesn't everyone have a favorite DoDD?

Some of us did.. a whole bunch dont.. but they LOVE war yet they would NEVER actually put their asses where their big fat mouths are.... I wonder if they would love it so much had THEY actually ever served anything but themselves. So let's draft 'em! That way those of us who have to lead them will be forced to deal with their uselessness. Thanks for your support. Let's see. Ya think maybe if mandatory service was required, say for two yrs., that boot camp and some disipline (that your not allowed to give at home anymore) maybe could help these useless people that this country (big corps. and fuckin TV) have produced? Hell no. The military is not, and should not be, a social experiment. It should win wars, plain and simple. Yes, it does provide guidance for a lot of misguided folks out there, but with the stipulation that they have to be willing to accept that help by voluntarily signing up. By your rationale, we'd be forcing these people to do something they don't want to do merely because we think it would be good for them. That doesn't fly with me one bit. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well, they could have shined my shoes if the Army hadn't switched to suede and patent leather, heh. Seriously, deep down, even the most unmotivated and scurvy grunts in today's military know they are there by choice. Take that away, and you've got an unmotivated and scurvy grunt who considers himself (and not without reason) a slave and a victim. I shudder to think of working with that type. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Oh, this has nothing to do with facts; at least not on my part. This is all personal opinion and bias. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Bleh. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Would that be "proper" 9mm or FMJ? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Some of us did.. a whole bunch dont.. but they LOVE war yet they would NEVER actually put their asses where their big fat mouths are.... I wonder if they would love it so much had THEY actually ever served anything but themselves. So let's draft 'em! That way those of us who have to lead them will be forced to deal with their uselessness. Thanks for your support. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Why's that? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well. If we'd quit meddling in other countries beewax MAYBE they'd quit fucking w/ us.(USA). Let em fight their own battles. I am so sick of this shit I wanna puke. I hope you're not referring to what I said...it would be way off topic if you were. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Story Sigh. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I voted "unlikely". I'd like to think that even the most short-sighted of us would see the drawbacks of a ham-fisted approach like that. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Easy for you to say, now that you're out. I'll take the volunteers I can get, shortage or not. You can have your draftees. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Why in the world would you want a draft? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I mean come on man. Some one else uses the "who contributes to who" line and you po po it implying that means nothing. NOW, that it supports YOUR position to do so there is some meaning to it. FLOP TOO is not the same as TO or TWO. DAM is not the same as DAMN. Don't complain if people can't understand your gibberish writing. Apparently you've forgotten! Ken Lay was the head of Enron - a BIG GOP and BUSH supporter. This is what desperation looks like, folks. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

If your post had been just the text above, you could be taken more seriously. Dragging Bush and Reagan into an French news story that has nothing to do with them is just...sad. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

"A war, which war, the war on Communism or the war on drugs which he proliferated via the CIA and had fall guy Ollie forget about all the details?" - Lucky You asked, I answered. He'd be a fairly inhuman and unlikable candidate if he didn't let us in on some of his personal feelings. I'm glad he expounded. It gives me confidence that he will act in a libertarian way despite personal misgivings. Your take on the evangelical right question is still way off the mark, and your last response proved it. He expounded on his answer, thus clarifying his position to thinking adults. Again, the question had nothing to do with personal choice, so I'm not sure where you're getting that angle from. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

The church will take care of it. The government taking care of it means money was forcibly taken from one person and given to another. Charity is voluntary. Strangely, I am not left feeling clueless in your presence. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I was referring to the Cold War. I agree the drug war is BS, and I don't need you to remind me. So as not to hijack the thread, I'll let you go refresh your history regarding WWII, the atomic bomb, and the Cold War. A person can have political beliefs and personal beliefs which differ. For instance, I'm politically pro-choice, but I'd never forgive myself if I let my child be aborted, so personally I'm pro-life (the mother's life, of course, being a top priority). Again, as Paul said, he wants to leave it up to the states. It is a perfectly libertarian thing to do. Where in Paul's answer about the Christian right does he deny "leave alone people's decisions to themselves" as you so eloquently put it? Personal choice was neither the topic of the question nor the topic of his reply. Merely, he wants the religious right to come to grips with the fact that they can't tell people what to do all the time. He wants compromise and cooperation. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Comment 1: It's true Reagan did increase the debt quite a bit. However, there was a war on...a war which we won, thanks to our spending. Comment 2: He wants to hand over the abortion debate to the states. Do you really think that's going to make the "moral vote" very happy? Comment 3: Should he pretend like the Christian right does not exist? Here is where I'm convinced that you applied no logical thought to what you read. He is trying to convince the religious right that the same civil liberties they sometimes oppose are the same civil liberties that allow them to practice their religion and voice their opinions. To put it another way, he's trying to get them to look at civil liberties in a different light; a light in which they may have to tolerate things they don't like, but with the understanding that they will not be persecuted for their beliefs either. Edited for clarity. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin