How are people defending this???

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

Communism allowed the Soviets to fund their war at soldier's pay. Capitalism increasingly requires the American taxpayer to fund our war at contractors' rates, which are significantly more pricey than soldiers' pay.

Based on some things you have said I am sure you are smart enough to know about "productivity". You are probably leaving it out so you can continue indicating you are making a good argument.

In case you don't understand productivity. It is why America outproduced the Soviet Union even though America had to pay it's workers more.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

What is the relationship between capitalism and no-bid contracts?

Does the price of contractor work in Iraq reflect a superior product (ie. productivity) or is it simply hazard pay? Do you really think our soldiers are better off because we pay a contractor $200/hr to spoon slop in the mess hall compared to a soldier doing the same thing?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

A capitalistic country can financially handle a war better than a communist country. That was what the argument was about when you made the comparison of Russia being in Afghanastan to the US being in Iraq.

Gee, I gave you credit for making a couple of good points, don't press your luck.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not according to the polls. Now it is your turn to provide some links. Show me that the only people who don't care about this are Obama suck ups. Show me that everyone but Obama suck ups are offended by what he said. You keep throwing crap out there hoping it will stick. Back it up. You can start with his poll numbers after the bitter comment (both nationally and in Pennsylvania and even in Indiana and North Carolina which haven't yet voted where he holds a lead).

Provide some links? You mean other than your posts?

I'll retract my comments to say that nobody I know but Obama suck ups don't have a problem with it. I can admit when I am wrong.

I do appreciate the links you did provide. I'll take a look at them, though I did notice that you emphasized in another post this:

"The survey finds a strong relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic status. In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations."

Nothing in that conclusion indicates that people who cling to guns and religion are bitter. That is what Obama said. How you can defend it is incomprehensible.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Provide some links? You mean other than your posts?

I'll retract my comments to say that nobody I know but Obama suck ups don't have a problem with it. I can admit when I am wrong.

I do appreciate the links you did provide. I'll take a look at them, though I did notice that you emphasized in another post this:



[/B]Nothing in that conclusion indicates that people who cling to guns and religion are bitter. That is what Obama said. How you can defend it is incomprehensible.

No, Il Pad. That isn't what he said. What you have done is flip his statement and rephrased it in the form of a fallacy. If some of group A are members of group B, it does not follow that all of group B are members of Group A.

I am not sure what you think you see in the post I emphasized. As is widely documented, the US is, overall, much more religious for its levels of prosperity than other nations in comparable positions. As I noted, however, within the US the general trend still holds that those from poorer backgrounds tend to be much more religious than those from wealthier backgrounds (which is why I gave you a link showing that to be true as well).

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not sure what you think you see in the post I emphasized. As is widely documented, the US is, overall, much more religious for its levels of prosperity than other nations in comparable positions. As I noted, however, within the US the general trend still holds that those from poorer backgrounds tend to be much more religious than those from wealthier backgrounds (which is why I gave you a link showing that to be true as well).

Fair enough.