Lefty

The argument does not assume that. It's simply saying that in the military, the risks to yourself are so high that the "service" you provide should have a payoff besides money. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

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

Wrong. The protagonist's father was a very wealthy businessman although, at the point when the book began, he had never served. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I don't think any less of them...since I shared some of those motives when I joined. However, the selflessness or selfishness of their motives does not diminish in the least the danger they put themselves in, or the service they provide to society. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Each time I read Starship Troopers, my appreciation for Heinlein's proposed system of politics grows. For those who haven't read the book, the only way to earn the right to vote (or become a politician at all) is to serve a term in the military. No one can be turned away if they wish to serve; it's a constitutional right...which is a very important point. Part of the dialogue in the book deals with why this is a good idea. It's not because military members are smarter or even because they have a stronger moral sense, per se. Rather, it's because they've put themselves through the rigors of a military term and have thus demonstrated their willingness to put the good of the society before themselves; swearing an oath to defend the society with their lives if necessary. Heinlein refers to this as "a unique 'poll tax'". It all sounds like a great idea to me. I would have a lot more confidence in politicians and even voters in general if I knew they placed a high enough value in the political process to risk their lives in order to participate. Your thoughts? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Woohoo! Kick ass, Boortz! The caller stayed surprisingly calm in the face of that lambasting, so he gets props too. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Heh, just a harmless sarcasm check. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Doesn't mean they're right, though. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Man, I remember back when I liked Coulter. Now I agree with you that she's just a shock jock. However, I find it funny how often the word "hate" is thrown around to label someone's comments. People who reflexively respond to meaningless, stupid jabs from pundits (on either side) with "Wah, hate speech!" are wusses. I'm glad Edwards is making good use of her comments, though. edit: grammar Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Heh, didn't someone say it's not the nature of the evidence but the coolness factor of the story that's important? (or something like that) Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I don't think touting Bush's war record is that common. Left-wingers are the ones who keep bringing it up. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Sounds fine to me. Oh, and bin Laden isn't a country. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

If Southpark counts then...Southpark. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

No no, Bill. He's from Clinton. He's not Clinton himself. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

No she's not. This is her way of being subtle without a bunch of name calling. It's about as subtle as a brass band. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Since I'm sure you're talking about the radical muslim terrorists who orchestrated September 11th, I'd say we'll eventually catch up to them and kill them. Sounds like reckoning enough. As a christian nation, though, we can believe that once we kill them, God will determine their ultimate fate. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Wow, so there is a definition! Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well, sometimes people just throw that word out there to make themselves feel smart. It is hard to pin the definition down since it has become a crutch (or just a filler word like profanity) for people who can't put their thoughts into coherent sentences and must rely on political pop-phrases like "neo-con" to express their feelings. I think, though, a neo-con could best be described as a conservative who abandons their conservative roots in favor of getting support while still claiming to be conservative. Sort of like Bush and the steel tariffs, Bush and domestic spending increases, etc. On the other hand, the same people who should be happy about these deviations from the conservative ideology are the same ones who use the term neo-con in a derogatory manner, so I'm at a loss. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

My response: Yeah, suuuuuure he did. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Sounds fine with me. Just put a libertarian judge on the bench and those lawsuits won't get far. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Oh yeah? Well...touché. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I see you've read my sig. However, you have interpreted it incorrectly. Tax cuts do not equal bribing. Welfare programs, however, do. It's politicians taking money from the people who earn it and giving it to those that haven't to buy votes that de Tocqueville was talking about. Unfortunately, this president has helped to expand the amount of people on the public teat, but not from the example you gave. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well, that's too bad. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Yes, officers are special. It helps prevent coups since, according to the oath, our loyalty is bound to the constitution. A general wanting to pull a third-world style takeover of the government would, in theory, have the entire officer corps in opposition to his actions. It's worked so far. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

"I, (state your name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation 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. " Just so you know, an officer does not swear allegiance to most of what you mentioned. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin