I argue that nobody ever said war was always heroic. You can morally dissent, for one thing. Those that fight and die choose to do so.
If anything, the widows should be recompensed with land, which is a far nobler trade for the life of a man but I am "old fashioned"
Edited, Jul 19th 2007 1:47pm by Lefein
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A modest proposal.
A modest proposal.Follow
I argue that nobody ever said war was always heroic.
War almost never is. Dying during war is almost always seen that way.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
War almost never is. Dying during war is almost always seen that way.
That's why it was always better to give land to fallen soldiers wives or surviving family back in ancient times. It's logical to lessen the burden on a fatherless household because they will not go destitute with a home.
I think it's far more the fashion these days to throw away the customs of the past in the name of an uncertain future. What you propose is not a long term solution, it merely puts a price on a soldiers head. Those who choose to serve their country should at least be treated like men.
Edited, Jul 19th 2007 2:00pm by Lefein
What you propose is not a long term solution
Sure it is. If dead soldiers survivors can find a way to be poor on $1M a year, so be it. I imagine it'd be pretty hard, though.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Lefein wrote:
Those who choose to serve their country should at least be treated like men.
Left to fend for themselves despite the odds and without taking into account their effort, intelligence or qualifications?
Or did you mean white men?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Lefein wrote:
That's why it was always better to give land to fallen soldiers wives or surviving family back in ancient times. It's logical to lessen the burden on a fatherless household because they will not go destitute with a home.
I think it's far more the fashion these days to throw away the customs of the past in the name of an uncertain future. What you propose is not a long term solution, it merely puts a price on a soldiers head. Those who choose to serve their country should at least be treated like men.
I think it's far more the fashion these days to throw away the customs of the past in the name of an uncertain future. What you propose is not a long term solution, it merely puts a price on a soldiers head. Those who choose to serve their country should at least be treated like men.
And what you propose is ****** at best. Yes, give the widows land and watch them lose it in an attempt to pay the ever increasing taxes along with it. That makes sense. What a **** poor proposal.
We throw away customs of the past because they aren't viable or logical, not because it's "fashionable". Who are you? The Everman? I suppose you remember when all natural water was clear too, dont'cha? Get with the times bud.
Smasharoo wrote:
Just the "cost" of troops dying, but we'd never put a price on that sort of sacrifice, would we? If this policy had gone into effect for the current conflict it would increase the federal budget by about 3 billion per year. I can list other things that cost 3 billion per year and we can compare their value to the lives of our troops.
And if we'd put it in place during WW2 (with adjusted numbers of course). What then?
I'll give the same answer to this as I give to the whole argument about the draft. Propose it and justify it when we're fighting a war that you agree with (or not fighting a war at all), and you might have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you're just doing it because you know that it will make a conflict that you disagree with more disagreeable to more people. Which means you aren't proposing this because you care about our soldiers but because you dislike the war and want to make it cost more.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
And if we'd put it in place during WW2 (with adjusted numbers of course). What then?
We'd have had to add 400 Billion to the defense budget I guess? Sorry, was that some sort of trick question?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Otherwise, you're just doing it because you know that it will make a conflict that you disagree with more disagreeable to more people. Which means you aren't proposing this because you care about our soldiers but because you dislike the war and want to make it cost more.
Are you even marginally aware of how little $3BUS/yr would impact spending in Iraq ??
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Otherwise, you're just doing it because you know that it will make a conflict that you disagree with more disagreeable to more people. Which means you aren't proposing this because you care about our soldiers but because you dislike the war and want to make it cost more.
Are you even marginally aware of how little $3BUS/yr would impact spending in Iraq ??
3 Billion dollars a year for the next 40 years or so *would* be a big deal though, wouldn't it?
You want to make survivor benefits worth 1 Million for soldiers who die in a combat zone? Great. All for it. I'm just not getting the "every year... forever" part.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
3 Billion dollars a year for the next 40 years or so *would* be a big deal though, wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't be. It would be a minuscule expenditure in a gigantic budget. We pay farmers more than that not to grow corn.
You want to make survivor benefits worth 1 Million for soldiers who die in a combat zone? Great. All for it. I'm just not getting the "every year... forever" part.
Which part confuses you? It's a $1,000,000 annuity survivor benefit. What is there not to "get"?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
3 Billion dollars a year for the next 40 years or so *would* be a big deal though, wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't be. It would be a minuscule expenditure in a gigantic budget. We pay farmers more than that not to grow corn.
Sure. But in theory anyway, we get a financial benefit directly back from that in the form of higher corn prices on the food market, farmers who can therefore afford to grow corn, and more revenue from the above as a result.
Handing a million dollars a year to the survivor of a dead soldier is just handing a million dollars a year to someone for the sake of handing it out. I know that this distinction doesn't matter much to someone with the "tax everyone at 50% and use the money to provide everyone with all the government services they could ever need" approach to economics, but for the rest of us, there is a huge distinction.
Quote:
You want to make survivor benefits worth 1 Million for soldiers who die in a combat zone? Great. All for it. I'm just not getting the "every year... forever" part.
Which part confuses you? It's a $1,000,000 annuity survivor benefit. What is there not to "get"?
Sorry. I should have been more clear. When I said "I'm not getting ...", I really meant "This is a completely moronic idea".
Better?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 284
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A modest proposal.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC