I agree with you that guilt can be a great motivator. I disagree with your conclusions on the motivation of Leftists. Most of the individuals who I would characterize as Leftists call for the redistribution of wealth because capitalism is unfair. Those with capital get more, those without less. Adam Smith points that out in Wealth of Nations. bk1955, I hate to tell you this, LIFE in general is very unfair. And as for deciding what is fair...who shall that be? YOU? I would suggest reading your history. There have been many countries over the years that have tried radical wealth redistribution and attempted to punish its own must successful citizenry simply because they are successful. It didn’t work out so well for them; nor is it working out very well for Western Europe, unless you actually like nations with 9+% unemployment rates and deficits well above the 3% of GDP they agreed to by treaty (by contrast the current U.S. budget deficit is less than 2% of GDP. I can also cite the Bible. Deuteronomy calls for wealth redistribution every seven and fifty years. The word for this is translated as Jubilee. Considering that I don’t even own a Bible, much less follow its teachings, this falls on deaf ears. Even so, knowing this, can YOU explain the Protestant Work Ethic? Also, how about the Eighth Commandment?  Is there an Amendment to that Commandment that says that those who make more than what is "fair" can be stolen from and that's OK in the eyes of God? Just because I am successful, you have the right to steal from me? And because you can’t do it at gunpoint, you get the government to do it? Yeah, that is so moral and righteous of you.

 .I don't know how you define "gutting" but by my definition no one I am aware of is in favor of that. Many Americans do percieve a problem with the ongoing growth of what Eisenhower identified as the Military Industrial Complex. If this “military industrial complex” is indeed growing, you may want to tell residents on the south side of San Antonio this. Five years ago they lost a huge chunk of this “complex” when the Air Logistics Center shut down there. Also, you may want to tell people in CA this; many have lost their jobs since the end of the Cold War, and THAT is not due to the expansion of military spending. Also, pick up a copy of Aviation Week and Space Technology and try telling me that there is such a complex with a straight face. Boeing would desperately love to keep its C-17 production line open but cannot due to slackening U.S. orders, so they are compelled to sell to overseas buyers such as Australia, the U.K.., and Canada. The C-17 is used for, among other things, humanitarian missions. Also, in spite of ongoing deployments and military commitments, the Air Force is reducing its size by 40,000 people by the year 2009. That is easily verifiable by opening up a copy of the Air Force Times at any point from the past year. Finally, according to my 2007 World Almanac and Book of Facts, the United States spends $460 billion on national defense (2004 figures cited) but the GDP was estimated to be $12.4 TRILLION in 2005. This is a rather economical investment in the security of the United States and its allies, don’t you think? Compare that to, say, the Chinese who are spending anywhere from 18% to 25% of their GDP on the military, depending on who you talk to. I am unaware of anyone in public or private life who believe the US should or could continue without a major capacity to defend itself. I am also unaware of anyone in public or private live who recommends withdrawal from many corners of the world because of the unfairness of the power of the US. However, I am aware of people who believe our presence in those areas is unnecessary and unjust. The people who believe this are those whom really don’t understand what is going on beyond the borders of the United States and most don’t even care to know, I’m afraid. Was it unnecessary or unjust that I spent the better part of the past year in South Korea, for instance? I don’t believe so; if the United States didn’t invest some time and effort there, perhaps the entire peninsula would be enslaved by the Korean Worker’s Party right now, and I don’t like that prospect very much. The South Koreans have a very capable military, but we SHOULD stand shoulder to shoulder with them, as they value freedom, democracy and capitalism every bit as much as we do here. I don't believe these opions to be driven by guilt, but rather self preservation. If self-preservation is an instinct you possess (hat tip to “the Wolf” in Pulp Fiction), you would understand that killing terrorists on the streets of Baghdad at the hands of professionals such as we have in our military is every bit more preferable than having innocents killed in the streets of, say, Brooklyn or Boston. I get that. And no, being there is not creating more terrorists. If your goal is to stop creating terrorists and to make people love the United States, I would suggest that you are either 230 years, 5 months and 4 days too late, or that we should just end the United States right now, for the United States of America will only be universally loved by all When It Is Gone (hat tip to Nightwish). As long as it exists, people will hate the United States. I am perfectly okay with this; but the instant you raise a hand against this great land or its citizens, you should die a violent death as a reminder to all not to mess with this great country. If you are thinking to yourself that violence does not solve anything and perpetuates some sort of cycle, I suggest you try selling that to the citizenry of Carthage (hat tip to Heinlein).

You appear to have strongly held beliefs. I respect you for that. I do not share your beliefs, but insulting you won't make me correct. Insulting me doesn't make you correct either.  If you truly believe my critique of any of your posts was in any way insulting, I suggest you read what other Leftists on here have written of me, and perhaps grow a much thicker skin. I make no apologies for attacking thinking that will only get this nation in a great deal of trouble if put into place as policy.

Nighto, Free...

I'm out.

As always...it's been fun.  ;)

I don't agree. While I agree this troll should be given a warning to watch the language, and banned if it does not.... I do not agree with an outright banning. That tactic is used too often on Liberal sites and it shows their absolute contempt for the free flow of ideas. Let us not fall into that trap.

We need practice on how to shut them down quickly (in the arena of ideas). This is how most libs think. Even if they don't resort to name calling and labeling us as Nazis.

I think it is important to warn this person to not use foul language, or counter every argument with "YOU F-ing NAZIS!!!" or they'll get banned. And if they do it after the warning.... ban them.

Another good way of avoiding this kind of behavior is just to not feed the troll. I did not realize that this person was a troll when I engaged them in a debate... and as the debate went on, I realized they were a troll. Their last post was so idiotic that it was clear that all they wanted to do was to troll this thread.

I invite a good debate. Give a troll a chance to show they are not a troll... then ban them if they prove themselves to be a troll.