Mandatory 2 Year Military Service after HS?

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: UptheMiddle
Its painfully obvious that the vast majority of the people posting here have never been in the military. Like all military positions are those of grunts :roll: In the military you can learn such skills as operating a nuclear power plant, electronics, diving, engine repair, construction, security, flying jets/helicopters, seamanship.....the list goes on and on. They test you prior to entry to determine what you're qualified for.

The earlier comments about learning math.....that's fine and dandy, but our over pompous educational system should also teach skills that require hands on application. For all the college that I've had, my cousin (who operates heavy construction equipment) makes well over twice what I make and I'm fortunate enough to have a well-paying job.

I think a mandatory 2 year service would be great.

Those are technical skills that do not require nearly as much knowledge or depth in terms of mathematical, science, etc. theory. When you speak of 'operating' devices, that's nice and all, but I'm not speaking about 'hands on application', but the design and development of the product that you are getting 'hands on application' with.

People in high level sciences, mathematics, engineering, medical, etc. don't really need to know how to fix a car engine, fly a jet, or whatever. The nation's best minds would be absolutely wasted learning how to shoot a rifle or learn about construction. I'd rather have the best minds spending time learning about actual scientific, etc. theory, especially at such a formative age.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

Hah!! Bigotry, that's actually funny. You mean "reverse bigotry" I think. :laugh:

Bigotry - The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Now what kind of retarded phrase is "reverse bigotry?" To be intolerant of those who are not like you is bigotry, plain and simple. Whether it is because of race, religion, wealth, shoe size, eye-color, etc is irrelevant. The attitude that you are somehow superior to others who are different from you, and as such, different rules/laws/standards should be applied is fundamentally and morally wrong.

Is this a difficult concept?

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Wow.. I'm starting to get scared.

Join the Air Force, can't go wrong there.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

Hah!! Bigotry, that's actually funny. You mean "reverse bigotry" I think. :laugh:

Bigotry - The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Now what kind of retarded phrase is "reverse bigotry?" To be intolerant of those who are not like you is bigotry, plain and simple. Whether it is because of race, religion, wealth, shoe size, eye-color, etc is irrelevant. The attitude that you are somehow superior to others who are different from you, and as such, different rules/laws/standards should be applied is fundamentally and morally wrong.

Is this a difficult concept?

Yes, it is a very difficult concept. All the common people picking on all those out numbered poor abused rich people. BooHooo.

The attitude that you are somehow superior to others who are different from you, and as such, different rules/laws/standards should be applied is fundamentally and morally wrong.

So, your too superior to have to waste your valuble time in the military, huh. Bigot!! Worse then that maybe, a bigot who calls other people bigoted for pointing out their bigotry??

I think you knew exactly what I meant by reverse bigotry. Go try and browbeat someone else.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

You know, it is against my will to have to have a driver's license to drive an automobile. It is also against my will to pay taxes. It is against my will to be told that I just can't pull a .410 derringer and shove it into someone's midsection and pull the trigger, because I want his house and to have his wife. I consider these my basic freedoms, dammit.

You see where this is leading? We make EVERYONE do something against their will - that is a basic tenent of society. You don't want that, then you are basically auditioning for the role of the Unabomber - a total anarchist.

Many, many civilizations require mandatory military or civil service. Are they all doing it because they hate the rich, or are bigots? Would the central Chinese government insist that it's military service laws are bigots, or because they hate the rich? How about Israel? Finland?

Just because the US hasn't chosen to have a draft or compulsive servcie for the past 30 years doens't mean that the practice of a draft or conscription for all is un-American. It just means we have chosen not to do it for a while...

FS

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Wow.. I'm starting to get scared.

Join the Air Force, can't go wrong there.

Was that some kind of joke? If it is, I apologize. I don't want to join the f***ing Air Force. I want to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, and live the life I want. I've never felt so threatened than by the idea that others are so willing to take away my freedoms from me and put my life on the line for them. A pretty damn big minority (55/125). :|

edit: angry emoticon is more appropriate than the disgusted.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Yes, it is a very difficult concept. All the common people picking on all those out numbered poor abused rich people. BooHooo.

The attitude that you are somehow superior to others who are different from you, and as such, different rules/laws/standards should be applied is fundamentally and morally wrong.

So, your too superior to have to waste your valuble time in the military, huh. Bigot!! Worse then that maybe, a bigot who calls other people bigoted for pointing out their bigotry??

I think you knew exactly what I meant by reverse bigotry. Go try and browbeat someone else.

Umm, ok. I'm not sure where you think I ever said the rich were ever "poor" or "abused." I'm also not sure where you think I ever claimed to be too superior for military service. In fact, I'm not too sure from whence you pulled anything in that post. I was merely pointing out that this idea of "the rich boogeymen" being somehow undeserving of the exact same rights and freedoms granted to each and every law-abiding citizen is a cheap cop-out.

For someone who attempts so hard to project a (grand?)fatherly image, you often resort to arguing like a high school sophomore when challenged on any of your posts. Why not just stick with clarifying and expounding upon your statements, instead of going off into useless hyperbole-land?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Just because the US hasn't chosen to have a draft or compulsive servcie for the past 30 years doens't mean that the practice of a draft or conscription for all is un-American. It just means we have chosen not to do it for a while...

FS

It's not un-American, it's essentially barbaric.

 

[cwjerome]

I guess the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness has a little asterisk next to it. You have those rights, unless the mighty state chooses to dictate what a man's life, liberty and happiness shall be (for just a few years mind you...)

Buncha statist do-gooders. The idea of "impressment" and pushing 'the masses' into the service of the authorities reeks of the Dark Ages. Just when you think civilization has progressed past a certain point...

 

[agentbad]

Originally posted by: azazyel
service = citizenship

either you're swiss, israeli, or starship troopers had quite an impact on you.


any how i don't think it would be all that bad because you would gain the skills to survive the harshest of enviroments. it would be better if it wasn't war time of course so maybe manitory to serve but not in war unless it was dyer ie. WWII. there will come a time however, where you have to set all the freedom bull aside and either fight or flee. i mean look at those poor people in new orleans. im sure some of them thought they were free until they got raped or murdered and for what. so they could rob their corpse? this is the end game for consumer culture. if you put all your pride in material things and not people then this is what happens. this is where america is headed so brace yourself.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

You know, it is against my will to have to have a driver's license to drive an automobile. It is also against my will to pay taxes. It is against my will to be told that I just can't pull a .410 derringer and shove it into someone's midsection and pull the trigger, because I want his house and to have his wife. I consider these my basic freedoms, dammit.

You see where this is leading? We make EVERYONE do something against their will - that is a basic tenent of society. You don't want that, then you are basically auditioning for the role of the Unabomber - a total anarchist.

Many, many civilizations require mandatory military or civil service. Are they all doing it because they hate the rich, or are bigots? Would the central Chinese government insist that it's military service laws are bigots, or because they hate the rich? How about Israel? Finland?

Just because the US hasn't chosen to have a draft or compulsive servcie for the past 30 years doens't mean that the practice of a draft or conscription for all is un-American. It just means we have chosen not to do it for a while...

FS

I'm not arguing against your support of military service (not in this post, at least.) What I'm arguing against is the notion that the rich (ooohh.. scary!) should be forced to join the armed forces just like the poor are "forced" to do." :roll:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in artificially limiting the rights/freedoms/abilities of others in order to "level the playing field," as that is counter-productive. Instead, the better, more "fair" approach is to broaden the rights and opportunites to include all groups. That why we freed slaves, instead of making everyone one. That's why we granted women's suffrage, instead of prohibiting the right to vote from men.

We're by no means perfect, but we are always striving to be better. And the only way to do that is to expand, not constrict. That's why affirmative action, salary-caps, hugely progressive taxation, prohibition, War on Drugs, etc are all non-workable ideas. They promote artificial limitations on some, in order to appease others. That may make some people feel better, but it certainly doesn't do much to benefit our country in the long run.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: agentbad

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
No. I think that it's a ridiculous concept.

either your swiss, israeli, or starship troopers had quite an impact on you.

None of the above.

First, I believe it's a waste of time for much of the country's better minds to learn how to shoot a rifle, construction work, or whatever if they would rather learn something else. Second, I don't think that the people should essentially be enslaved by their government for two years of their adult life when many of them could actual learn concepts and theories that would make them even more valuable to the society as a whole.

 

[1EZduzit]

Gee, seems like some people are worried there might be a chance that they will have to do something that they don't want to do. That's not fair, that's not democratic. By god, it's down right unconstitutional!!

Maybe next time you back a war you should think about that first?? A bullet in the head would sure put a crimper on your style, wouldn't it. If Congress (or Bush, Cheney, powell, etc.) had to put their children in harms way maybe they would have looked at the intelligence a little harder.....maybe even a LOT harder.

I used to be against a draft, but this Iraq war has shown me the fallacy of my thinking. If a war is worth fighting, then BY GOD let our leaders have their loved ones in harms way and no exemptions for ANYBODY.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: azazyel
service = citizenship

Great Movie!!

Campy but cool.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Absolutely not. The last time we had a draft, it spawned the current crowd of warmongering neocons that plague us today. Draft dodgers like Dick Cheney. Active duty dodgers like George Bush Jr.

q]


One word dumbarse "Clinton"

put that in your pipe and smoke it!

people that think and as blind as you are ruin the country.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Gee, seems like some people are worried there might be a chance that they will have to do something that they don't want to do. That's not fair, that's not democratic. By god, it's down right unconstitutional!!

Yes. Despite the 130+ posts in this thread, he only reason anyone has to be against mandatory military service is cowardice.

 

[Proletariat]

Yo CK - heres what I think:

The current military is entirely voluntary. These people want to go and fight. And therein I see the problem. We basically have a bunch of people who either A) need the money/benefits or B) are out there to kill - I.E. they find war fun. Thats what I think is hurting us on the ground in Iraq and globally in a sense. If you have an army which is a cross section of American society you will get people like myself or yourself whom may have different ideals and may help change the peoples opinion on the ground - you know?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

You know, it is against my will to have to have a driver's license to drive an automobile. It is also against my will to pay taxes. It is against my will to be told that I just can't pull a .410 derringer and shove it into someone's midsection and pull the trigger, because I want his house and to have his wife. I consider these my basic freedoms, dammit.

You see where this is leading? We make EVERYONE do something against their will - that is a basic tenent of society. You don't want that, then you are basically auditioning for the role of the Unabomber - a total anarchist.

Many, many civilizations require mandatory military or civil service. Are they all doing it because they hate the rich, or are bigots? Would the central Chinese government insist that it's military service laws are bigots, or because they hate the rich? How about Israel? Finland?

Just because the US hasn't chosen to have a draft or compulsive servcie for the past 30 years doens't mean that the practice of a draft or conscription for all is un-American. It just means we have chosen not to do it for a while...

FS

I'm not arguing against your support of military service (not in this post, at least.) What I'm arguing against is the notion that the rich (ooohh.. scary!) should be forced to join the armed forces just like the poor are "forced" to do." :roll:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in artificially limiting the rights/freedoms/abilities of others in order to "level the playing field," as that is counter-productive. Instead, the better, more "fair" approach is to broaden the rights and opportunites to include all groups. That why we freed slaves, instead of making everyone one. That's why we granted women's suffrage, instead of prohibiting the right to vote from men.

We're by no means perfect, but we are always striving to be better. And the only way to do that is to expand, not constrict. That's why affirmative action, salary-caps, hugely progressive taxation, prohibition, War on Drugs, etc are all non-workable ideas. They promote artificial limitations on some, in order to appease others. That may make some people feel better, but it certainly doesn't do much to benefit our country in the long run.

So you just after me again gunslinger?? Is this what's called a personal attack?? I never used the word rich, you brought that word into the fray, right along with the word bigot.

If you have a problem with me, then PM me with what it is, because this is BS, palin and simple.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Absolutely not. The last time we had a draft, it spawned the current crowd of warmongering neocons that plague us today. Draft dodgers like Dick Cheney. Active duty dodgers like George Bush Jr.

q]


One word dumbarse "Clinton"

put that in your pipe and smoke it!

people that think and as blind as you are ruin the country.

Bill Clinton went to Oxford...in my opinion, that's a perfect example of someone that should be an exception to this type of program.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Gee, seems like some people are worried there might be a chance that they will have to do something that they don't want to do. That's not fair, that's not democratic. By god, it's down right unconstitutional!!

Yes. Despite the 130+ posts in this thread, he only reason anyone has to be against mandatory military service is cowardice.

Why didn't you put the rest of the post in there?? You too chicke?? :laugh:

Yes ahole, you are making a personal attack on me. Well get fvked. Is that palin enough for you??

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Gee, seems like some people are worried there might be a chance that they will have to do something that they don't want to do. That's not fair, that's not democratic. By god, it's down right unconstitutional!!

Yeah, let's not say that being slaves to the state for two years is bad!

Maybe next time you back a war you should think about that first?? A bullet in the head would sure put a crimper on your style, wouldn't it. If Congress (or Bush, Cheney, powell, etc.) had to put their children in harms way maybe they would have looked at the intelligence a little harder.....maybe even a LOT harder.

Nobody is having some sort of forced enlisting into the military at this point. If you enlist into the military, then you should expect to performthe functions of the military

I oppose the start of the Iraq war, but I realize that you do not have to go to extremist measures in all of your political, social, and financial ideas. This is something that the many liberal extremists on this forum do not realize.

 

[Xonoahbin]

Let me think about it..
Hell no?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Future Shock

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons. It doesn't have to just be the Bush twins - put the sons and daugters of the CEOs and board members of some of America's largest companies (like Halliburton and KBR) and see if they are so quick to run us into battle...

That's the rational of shared sacrifice - frankly it sucks from an Econ 201 perspective (inefficient use of resources) but scores well in Political Science and History (traditionally, the civilizations where the upper classes started to hire mercenaries- a "for pay" army - to fight their battles eventually suffered badly for it, usually by the dissolution of their civilization). You want to keep America strong in the long-term: balance the econ concerns with the historical concerns...it's probably some form of mandatory service, with a limited time in active uniform...

FS

I agree. My bet is we would never have invaded Iraq if the leadership of this country was absorbing it's share of the carnage. A lot more people would also pay attention to what is going on in the country, both politicaly and economicaly.

So we give up our basic freedoms and force certain groups of people to do something against their will to make ourselves feel better? Do we mandate that caucasions must be made slaves for 250 years to make things better? That males must lose the right to vote for the lack of women's suffrage in our early years?

At what point does the hatred of the 'rich' become bigotry?

You know, it is against my will to have to have a driver's license to drive an automobile. It is also against my will to pay taxes. It is against my will to be told that I just can't pull a .410 derringer and shove it into someone's midsection and pull the trigger, because I want his house and to have his wife. I consider these my basic freedoms, dammit.

You see where this is leading? We make EVERYONE do something against their will - that is a basic tenent of society. You don't want that, then you are basically auditioning for the role of the Unabomber - a total anarchist.

Many, many civilizations require mandatory military or civil service. Are they all doing it because they hate the rich, or are bigots? Would the central Chinese government insist that it's military service laws are bigots, or because they hate the rich? How about Israel? Finland?

Just because the US hasn't chosen to have a draft or compulsive servcie for the past 30 years doens't mean that the practice of a draft or conscription for all is un-American. It just means we have chosen not to do it for a while...

FS

I'm not arguing against your support of military service (not in this post, at least.) What I'm arguing against is the notion that the rich (ooohh.. scary!) should be forced to join the armed forces just like the poor are "forced" to do." :roll:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in artificially limiting the rights/freedoms/abilities of others in order to "level the playing field," as that is counter-productive. Instead, the better, more "fair" approach is to broaden the rights and opportunites to include all groups. That why we freed slaves, instead of making everyone one. That's why we granted women's suffrage, instead of prohibiting the right to vote from men.

We're by no means perfect, but we are always striving to be better. And the only way to do that is to expand, not constrict. That's why affirmative action, salary-caps, hugely progressive taxation, prohibition, War on Drugs, etc are all non-workable ideas. They promote artificial limitations on some, in order to appease others. That may make some people feel better, but it certainly doesn't do much to benefit our country in the long run.

Dude I agree with a lot of what you say. And if the entire world was Vic, yourself and I that would work. But people are sometimes incredibly selfish. They need people to lead them and show them what good is. You may realize it yourself but most do not. That is what I have realized in my 21 years of life.

 

[agentbad]

power corrupts, food fattens, and tv stays the same.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So you just after me again gunslinger?? Is this what's called a personal attack?? I never used the word rich, you brought that word into the fray, right along with the word bigot.

If you have a problem with me, then PM me with what it is, because this is BS, palin and simple.

What? I was responding to FS, getting my ideas of rich from his quote:

The best way to check an overly aggressive government is to put the sons and daughters of the upper classes at the same risk as the lower classes that are forced to join the military for economic reasons.

I wasn't even responding to you at all in this post, and have no idea where you could possibly see a personal attack in any of my posts here, but you go ahead and ride that indignation, cowboy! :beer:

Yes ahole, you are making a personal attack on me. Well get fvked. Is that palin enough for you??

Yep, as "palin" as the nose on my face, Cutie. :lips: