Lefty

That's the traditional view, yes. However, it would take a looooooong time to save up enough money to buy a property flat out with no mortgage. Why do that when you can borrow money, buy the house, and still make enough through rental prices to cover the mortgage plus earn a bit for your own use every month? The best part is, you can keep doing this over and over without having to wait to save up all that money again. Bottom line, not all debt is bad. Edit: And even with the "all things being equal" caveat, this still works better. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Buy it. Debt is great when you think of it in terms of using other people's money to make money for yourself. Take real estate rentals. I've got a friend in the Army who partially owns a number of properties. Technically, he is many hundreds of thousands in debt, yet these properties put money into his pocket every month from rental income. How is this form of debt bad? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Story Not good enough to visit Ground Zero, but good enough to speak at Columbia. Go figure. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Why give hard earned money to people who don't deserve it? It's cosmically wrong and cruel. Yes. It's a waste to give money to anyone whose habits did not get them out of the poverty level in the first place. There's reasons why people are poor in the U. S. You are either unimaginitve or lazy, made major life mistakes in your teens and decided not to rebound, or lack of knowledge and/or dicipline. Or persuit of happiness does not equate a high total worth. Some people like to work for a living. The money will disappear. So not only will the distribution of wealth will momentarily decrease the poverty level (also decrease the high income level), but the poor will soon lose it again (the saying "the fool and his money is soon parted" is pretty old) the newly upper-middle class will be rich again and the entitlement equalibrium will be restored. Then the poor will be even more disillusioned because they cannot understand why they can't be rich, claiming the rich are holding them down and "they are getting richer on our hard work" or such other ignorant phrase. Back to square one but more bad feelings. Well said. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I've decided, for you, that we don't REALLY need parachutes. It's that wacky American wild recreation mentality you are suffering from (it's only American too, that cliche never gets old). yea...ok. apples and oranges brother......apples and oranges. It's actually a fair analogy from a recreational standpoint. Your idealism brings a tear to my eye, though...*sniff* Mean old guns! *sniff* Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Does this mean you consider every serviceman who ever surrendered and became a POW to be a coward? Hah, I knew he'd say something like that. *yawn* Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Story Can the guy make himself any more of a sad joke? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Once they're the majority, can't we stop celebrating "diversity"? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well, he is the president. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

With links like that, who needs to go outside? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

That's who I'll be voting for. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Ever heard of the saying "every marine a rifleman"? Expand that to the whole military, and realize that even the quartermasters would be expected and maybe required to fight if the situation called for it. As for the oath fixation, it's an important part of what sets the military apart from civilians...you can't just discount it. Now, as for your point about the PhD and other such commitments, I've addressed all that in prior posts. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Words with the backing of the UCMJ. Not once the two years is up. Ok. Pointless, but ok. Well, no actually, not pointless at all - unless you've shifted your goal posts again. You've said that non-combat personnel ie. physicists and engineers can basically do their civvy jobs as their service as long as they take an oath and do it for a military paycheck. The kind of people we were talking about (Manhatten project workers were one example) know damn well they would never be called on to go into harms, oath or not. So again, the oath is just words, and once they actually become citizens, words that are no longer enforced. Still pointless. Just because they might not be called into harm's way doesn't mean they could run if harm were to find them. They would be required to follow orders, even if it meant standing and fighting while the civilians ran away. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Words with the backing of the UCMJ. Not once the two years is up. Ok. Pointless, but ok. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

While the government did do all the work for the bomb, most miltary technology comes from the defensive contractors. That would include just above every vehicle (tank, plane, or rocket). And if it's still serving the public good to do R&D safely at home in America, there are thousands of other job roles that also serve the public good, so why not just stick to what has actually worked? Your model sounds much more like membership in the Party in communist nations like China and the USSR. Hasn't worked nearly so well for them. Ok, we're straying a bit off topic here, so here's a reiteration. No one said these jobs weren't important. Further, no one said defense contractors can't exist or whatever straw man you all want to put up. We're simply talking about the right to vote. A stint in the military, even if the job is not on the front lines, still requires that you be a line of defense between society and threats to it. It's part of the oath you swear when you join. When you think about the oath, it is a pretty heavy burden to bear...maybe too heavy, for some. Still, more than any other indicator, the willingness to swear this oath and to place yourself in harm's way for society (be in completely voluntary or with a bit of caoxing from UCMJ, once you're in) demonstrates a commitment to that society that no other occupation can boast. The people who swear this oath and subject themselves to military law (giving up many of their freedoms in the process) show a level of commitment that no scientist, professor, doctor, or defense contractor can boast. At the end of the day, these people can choose to save their own skins and nothing will happen to them. The same is not true of a soldier. I hope that's clear enough...like Kallend says, though, the burden of successful communication is on the speaker. I'll keep trying if I have to. Sure, we could do that if you don't mind having a boring Speaker's Corner :) Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Words with the backing of the UCMJ. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Paraphrasing from the book: While you are in the military, you can't vote. You have to complete your term, thus returning to civilian life, before you can vote or enter politics. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Did it? My reply to you is the same as the one to Kallend. Where did I say these scientists would have been on the front line fighting instead of using their brilliant minds in an R&D capacity? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Where is it said they'd be infantrymen? I already stated that they could join the military in an R&D capacity. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) That's a pretty heavy oath...one unique to military officers. Did those civilians who developed the bombs have to swear to such things? Do firefighters? Remember, there would be nothing stopping these people from joining the military in the Starship Trooper world and providing similar services...only with the small stipulation of perhaps sacrificing your life for the good of the society. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I was thinking of the firefighters argument earlier. My best answer is that they're not defending us from any external, sentient threat. As for the conscientious objectors, I really have no sympathy. A society full of conscientious objectors would be taken over so fast it wouldn't be funny. The only reason they can enjoy the luxury of holding those opinions is because someone else will fight for them. Same with pacifists. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Ah, forgot about that. You're right. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

No it wasn't. Yes, it was - not all federation service was military. Well, it may not have applied to all civil servants. However, there is a scene where Rico meets a cop that seems to imply that the police force is as highly regarded as the military. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

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

Having a high school diploma with study in those classes doesn't mean they can make rational decisions either. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin