Lion of the Blogosphere

The Starship Troopers government

Robert Heinlein was called a “facist” by liberal types for proposing, in his science-fiction novel Starship Troopers, a system of government in which only those who served in the military were allowed to vote.

Although Democrats have gleefully paraded around the Muslim father who also happens to be a big-time supporter of liberal Democrats and will shamelessly use his dead son for their benefit (maybe with some quid pro quo for his legal practice?), in reality polls show that if only those who served in the military were allowed to vote (those who have had real skin in the game), Trump would handily defeat Hillary Clinton, whose family, like Trump’s, has no military service and who is married to Bill who put a lot of effort into dodging the draft (not saying that there’s anything wrong with dodging the draft, but this week, ironically, Democrats are indeed saying that there’s something wrong with not serving in the military).

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 4, 2016 at 8:06 am

Posted in Politics

73 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great topic and I’ve glad you’ve done a post on this. For years I’ve viewed a “Starship Troopers” Republic as a far more optimal version than the democracy we have now. The founders recognized the problems with democracy since they wanted only men with property to vote since those were the people with skin in the game. Democracies go down hill when those who are parasites off the system and don’t have a vested interest in the system and don’t care if it survives after they die get the vote and start voting to loot the Treasury. Then it becomes in the government’s (short term) interest to appeal to those very voters…sound familiar?

    Although in the novel any federal service, not just military service, could earn you the vote, the novel focused on the military aspect because as Heinlein said, “The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not.”

    THAT is the type of virtue that a voter needs, and is totally absent from the American electorate.

    Mike Street Station

    August 4, 2016 at 8:16 am

    • You want Jorge Videla to run a country?


      August 4, 2016 at 9:27 am

      • Huh?

        Mike Street Station

        August 4, 2016 at 10:04 am

      • Well Yakov, J. Videla ran Argentina from 1976-80 and did much better than the civilian mediocrities that preceeded him. Killed Tupamaros and Montoneros marxists by the thousands,did not allow the country to become a larger version of Cuba and successfully organized Argentina’s only world cup (which they won). So yes guys like Videla, Stroessner, Franco or Pinochet are infinitely better than the usual politicos in any country.

        D. Gonzalez

        August 4, 2016 at 10:35 am

      • Certainly most people today are unfit for voting or jury duty, but if only the military participate, why won’t they vote in their own interest?


        August 4, 2016 at 11:49 am

      • @D. Gonzales

        Regardless of their true or imaginary merits, they weren’t able to offer a sustainable system of government. Pinochet from the very beginning saw himself as a transitional stage to a civilian rule. Military intervention or a revolution can be inevitable and a good thing, but they are not lasting.


        August 4, 2016 at 1:14 pm

      • In the Heinlein story, only retired military could vote – active duty, including generals, were ineligible.


        August 4, 2016 at 5:59 pm

      • “So yes guys like Videla, Stroessner, Franco or Pinochet are infinitely better than the usual politicos in any country.”

        If I had to choose between one of them vs Obama, Merkel, Hollande, etc I wouldn’t choose the latter.


        August 4, 2016 at 6:04 pm

      • videla is a great example of how extra-judicial murder/state sponsored “terrorism” was in fact justified by the circumstances…as were the various “repressions” of the national party of south africa.

        the so called “dirty war” was in fact a civil war.

        and my God it was all supported by the US.

        but nowadays american “conservatives” get their panties in a bunch about stalin.

        jorge videla

        August 4, 2016 at 8:05 pm

      • @destructure

        Yep, Pinochet was the best. I loved that guy. When drinking Chilean wine my kids and me would always drink a toast to his health and later to his memory. Franco is different, my grandfather had spent two years fighting for the Republic and was decorated with the order of Combat Red Flag, so I’m anti-Franco. I’m for the people, Franco was for the rich. Videla was a criminal, but if Trump loses, I’m willing to take Videla for four years to put the country in order.


        August 4, 2016 at 9:23 pm

      • Videla, unlike the other “tyrants”, including Franco, play hardball with his Jews. Jews in most societies, tread left wing and so they were an enemy, to any right-o-sphere faction.

        Ironically, the cries for help from Argentina’s Jews under Videla, were mostly ignored by the Israeli embassy. Israel is a right wing country when it comes ethnic nationalism, and thus they supported Videla’s stance on the Jews, who were perceived a threat to the nation’s Roman Catholic identity.


        August 4, 2016 at 10:16 pm

      • There’s a difference between communist revolutionaries mass murdering people and military leaders killing communist revolutionaries who want to mass murder people.


        August 5, 2016 at 12:25 am

      • Had Franco and his Nationalists not come into power, it would have been a total disaster. Only El Torpe like Yakov would believe otherwise.

        Unlike other Western European countries during the late 19th – early 20th centuries, Spain was just a provincial backwater, which failed to modernize in any sense and was stuck in a pseudo feudalism with its Latifundia (large wealthy estates staffed by an array of low skilled workers). Had the Republicans won, they would have been the idiots that one finds within our Democratic party, in the likes of Bill de Blasio, who know nothing about business practices, only doling out welfare and spouting a bunch of baloney (what an irony for Yakov to embrace the Republicans). Furthermore, Spain was primitive, relatively speaking, and by allowing the average prole to run the show would be a failure, the same goes for the intellectual class, who supported the Republicans. To build a modern society with a bourgeois takes time, and for Spain, it took a long time. Franco’s support from the wealthy landowners and business owners made a whole of lot of sense, given Spain’s lack of modernity during that era.


        August 5, 2016 at 1:03 am

      • @destructure

        I don’t have a problem with Videla’s handling of the communists, it’s the criminality of his regime that I object to.


        August 5, 2016 at 11:14 am

      • unlike the putin regime?

        jorge videla

        August 5, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      • @Videla

        Putin isn’t eliminating thousands of people or trading in children. He is mostly surgical in his approach. Also he has redeeming features like his liberation of the Crimea. I would never vote for him though. Today I would support the Communist party.


        August 5, 2016 at 4:57 pm

      • Yakov — My last comment wasn’t in response to yours. I should have addressed it to Jorge Videla to avoid confusion. He compared the actual Jorge Videla to Stalin. In my pinion, that was a false equivalency.


        August 5, 2016 at 5:58 pm

      • Putin definitely has redeeming features.


        August 5, 2016 at 7:03 pm

      • @JS

        Nobody knows what would have happened had Franco not started the civil war. Spain had a legitimate center-left government which mostly likely would not have survived for its full term and the right would have had another chance at the ballot box. But we don’t know. What we know is that only with massive aid and intervention of Germany and Italy and the hypocritical arms embargo imposed by the western democracies was Franco able to win. Had the Republic been able to procure arms as any legitemate government has a right to do, Franco would have been hanged. Under Franco’s nationalist government the Moorish troops were brought in to fight against Spanish peasants and workers. It was the first time since reconquista that an armed Muslim had set his foot on Spanish soil. Franco only rebelled when after he secured German support, he knew he couldn’t win against the people.

        My grandfather should have been fighting the Arabs and the British in Palestine, but Republic was a good cause for non-Jews. He’d reached the rank of Captain, which is pretty good for someone without HS education and professional military training. Could have been a major in Israel. Franco was good to the Jews though. He looked very Jewish himself, must have been a decendent of conversos.


        August 5, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    • Who decided “Universal Suffrage” was a good idea anyway? Restoring sensible restrictions on suffrage would be one of the best steps towards sanity and away from this country’s impending suicide.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      August 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm

      • It sure wasn’t the founders. They opposed the type of universal suffrage system we have now. Politically speaking, any improvements are impossible however. We are a democracy heading towards the next stage of democracy: tyranny.

        Mike Street Station

        August 4, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    • Ah, Starship Troopers, the destructive testing of a future interstellar federal Libertarian Republic (Heinlein’s words) suppressing the remnants of statism within… while battling invasion by communist bugs and fascist insect-lizard people without.

      “…personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic …” remains part of the Senior Libertarian Pledge.

      BTW, the military loves Gary Johnson next best.


      August 5, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    • The best way to dodge the draft is not to have asinine wars that don’t benefit the country.

      The draft should no exceptions for anyone of service age. That way elites and SWPL’s would have to risk their singular offspring of either gender in hell holes like Afghanistan. The Clintons certainly would not have wanted Chelsea drafted as a soldier. If there are exceptions for crap like college, then those who send other people’s kids could spare their own. No, none of that. We wouldn’t have these dumb wars if the special snowflakes were expected to serve like the hillbillies and rednecks.

      not too late

      August 7, 2016 at 1:47 am

  2. Attacks are also being aimed at Trump’s kids for not serving in Iraq. Democrats are saying there is something wrong with not volunteering for a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 and that everyone now, and Democrats at the time (?), thought was a mistake.


    August 4, 2016 at 8:43 am

  3. Considering where military service members disproportionately originate, it’s hardly surprising that they overwhelmingly vote Republican.


    August 4, 2016 at 8:52 am

  4. Starship Troopers had to be one of the worst movies in history.


    August 4, 2016 at 8:54 am

    • Yeah, but what does that have to do with the book?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 4, 2016 at 8:58 am

    • I enjoyed the book which I read in high school (though in retrospect it suffers from Heinlein’s constant practice of inserting characters that served as his own mouthpieces, whose primary purpose is simply to lecture other characters with his views.) Never saw the movie since the reviews said Verhoeven drastically altered the plot and message. Which is consistent with Hollywood’s practice of adapting science fiction stories/novels into films that have almost nothing in common with the source material.

      If you’ve never read the book, forget about the movie and read it.


      August 4, 2016 at 10:10 am

    • The choosing of Paul Verhoeven to direct the 1997 movie was either an example of Hollywood blunder or intentional sabotage by the rights holder. Maybe they thought “Hey! I loved Robocop and Total Recall” those were both action sci-fi. This is action sci-fi and he works to a budget so he will be perfect. They forgot that some of his earilest memories involved living in occupied Holland during the hunger winter and the liberation of Holland from the Nazis. They probably didn’t bother to watch Soldier of Orange (you should though good film) or bother asking him his feelings on galaxy spanning unitary party states. If they had Verhoeven could never have delivered one of the 20th centuries last great works of political satire.

  5. It’s always intriguing to watch from afar the American tendency to stick their tongues up the military’s behind. You fought in a war. Great. Or a family member did. Whatever. Doesn’t make you beyond reproach. (And that’s not even starting on how many of those wars were just wrong.)

    It’s also interesting that it’s become a sort of ghetto for white prole pride. Work in a factory, you’re a loser. Work outdoors, you’re a loser. Work with your hands and skip college, you’re a loser. TPTB will do everything within their considerable power to destroy you and drag you down to third world status.

    Fight in the same powers’ wars, however (y’know, the same ones that they’re using to drag in the cheap labor to destroy you), and you’re a paragon of virtue, beyond reproach, people must thank you, the objection to govt provided healthcare magically goes away, you get special consideration in many jobs…


    August 4, 2016 at 8:55 am

    • With a volunteer military it’s in fact goes too far. It’s weird – these guys chose it, they got paid for it. It’s a good thing they did, but the adoration is just carried too far.


      August 4, 2016 at 9:17 am

    • Jesse, your basic point’s right — it’s kind of nauseating how the rightwing talkjocks verbally fellate ex-military callers. But your last couple of paragraphs are a bit off, because the people that object to gvt-provided healthcare love factory-outdoors-college-skipping-white-prole-workers, while the people that like gvt-provided healthcare only like vets (or parents of same) who hate the West and want to destroy it.


      August 4, 2016 at 9:22 am

      • “…while the people that like gvt-provided healthcare only like vets (or parents of same) who hate the West and want to destroy it.”

        Hey! As long as the religious right keeps trying to replace those pesky Americans with cheap, pliant and socially conservative foreigners, can we lay off the idea that the left has a monopoly on hating the West? I try not to judge conservatives based on Conservatism, Inc. Please extend the same courtesy to the left.

        (Writing as someone who loves the West, wants single payer healthcare and wants it to be for me and my compatriots only.)


        August 4, 2016 at 9:46 am

      • Jesse, your basic point’s right — it’s kind of nauseating how the rightwing talkjocks verbally fellate ex-military callers.

        Having a military that “we” can all get behind is a necessary side effect of having an Armed Forces wing which actually considers itself part and parcel of our actual “American” population. The alternative is to have a military that does whatever the hell it wants and operates with its own private goals in mind, like what you’d see in the 3rd world.


        August 4, 2016 at 11:28 am

      • Okay, Jesse🙂. But I don’t think that those pro-massive-southling-immigration “religious right” guys actually hate the West; rather, they’re oblivious of/to(?) the existence or past existence of the West. The bad Leftists (as opposed to the good Leftists like you and your friends), on the other hand, actually hate the West. (West = the legacy of Numenor, I guess.)


        August 4, 2016 at 11:48 am

      • “Hey! As long as the religious right keeps trying to replace those pesky Americans with cheap, pliant and socially conservative foreigners, can we lay off the idea that the left has a monopoly on hating the West?”

        He’s a Republican.


        August 4, 2016 at 1:09 pm

      • can we lay off the idea that the left has a monopoly on hating the West?

        The left does have a monopoly on hating the west. Being opposed to one’s own group is part of what makes one a leftist. I’m not just making that up. Jonathan Haidt’s research shows that liberals rate the lowest on group loyalty and conservatives the highest. Having said that, I don’t think many GOP elite rate very high on group loyalty either. But, then, I wouldn’t consider them conservatives. I certainly don’t consider TruCon cucks like Huelskamp conservative.

        Don’t confuse being religious with being conservative. Just because someone weeps and cries over all those single welfare whores aborting their little bastards doesn’t make them conservative. In fact, that sounds like a bleeding heart liberal to me. There’s a strain of bleeding heart that’s been metastasizing among religious denominations for at least 25 years. It’s still a minority but it’s growing. And I don’t like it. I don’t like it at all.


        August 4, 2016 at 6:22 pm

      • Um, @destructure, the pic I posted is of a hard core right wing Republican congressman.

        @Lion, correct “facist.” It bothers me. It’s in the post.


        August 5, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    • All I can say is that I’m glad the military is still firmly in the hands of conservative core Americans (to take a term from Sailer). And that won’t be changing any time soon.


      August 4, 2016 at 9:41 am

      • You mean folks like Jill Kelly (born Gilberte Khawam in Beruit) are on the periphery? BTW – I hold no particular brief against this woman and I don’t recall Lion ever posting about this very serious but semi-funny cat fight which is too bad.


        August 4, 2016 at 10:48 am

      • It’s a ghetto, in the Warsaw sense, not in the Baltimore sense. Conservatives get hemmed in, so that the only allowed way of showing pride in white prole-ness is, uh, fighting the Establishment’s wars.

        Meanwhile, the non-conservatives are more than a little nonplussed at the blood lust. The hypocrisy on healthcare doesn’t help, in that they seem to have decided that veterans, and veterans alone, are deserving of taxpayer money being spent on their health expenses. And let’s not get into the latent homoeroticism.

        But yes, keep being proud that Yo’ People are the ones fighting the wars. Sure, you’re powerless to keep any other institution or stop any of the agendas you hate. Sure, you’re even powerless to stop the Establishment from gutting everything your pweshus military is meant to stand for, but you take those scraps. You take them good.


        August 4, 2016 at 11:11 am

      • It isn’t. You can find plenty of conservative enlisted folks and officers below the rank of Colonel, but it is very rare to find a conservative General. Somehow they manage to filter promotion to General so that mainly liberals get through. Or maybe the Generals “pretend” to be liberal just to get promoted, but they certainly put up zero resistance to ideas that liberal politicians impose on the military.


        August 6, 2016 at 8:32 am

    • Yeah that was pretty terrible how NY was bombed and it was white Southerners who signed up and got revenge for it.

      The Trump boys reported for duty by slicking their hair back even further and date raping more drunk models. And now the press has the temerity to say they sacrificed nothing!

      Lion of the Turambar

      August 4, 2016 at 10:09 am

      • “Yeah that was pretty terrible how NY was bombed and it was white Southerners who signed up and got revenge for it.”

        C’mon, you don’t think Iraq was about 9-11, do you? And Afghanistan…is Afghanistan.

        Revenge would’ve been a mass expulsion.


        August 4, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    • Yep. I’ve long maintained the Dems should have made every govt. agency a sub-branch of the Dept. of Defense and Repubs would quit bitching.


      August 4, 2016 at 10:28 am

      • *cackles*

        I like you.


        August 4, 2016 at 12:19 pm

  6. Progressives, who embody hypocrisy every moment of the day, are never more hypocritical than on the topic of the military. They went from feverishly anti-war in the Bush years, to “War? wot war?” the split second Obama was elected. All Hillary’s war mongering? No problem.

    Just imagine if Trump had spat out Hillary’s vile, “We came, we saw, he died [CACKLE!!]” line. It would be on a 24×7 loop everywhere you looked.

    Progressives are 100% political, and war, dead soldiers, etc. are just more political props for them to use. If there’s a Republican President then “war bad! soldiers evil!” If it’s a Dem President, then yeah, whatever, a war, so what, and “soldiers are heroes!” They are so disgusting.


    August 4, 2016 at 9:20 am

    • What’s amazing is that 70% of US soldiers who were killed in the Afghan War died on Obama’s watch after he escalated the war for no gain, yet he has been given a total pass on that. Very few Americans are even aware of it, because the toadying media buried it. If a Republican had done that it would be one of the defining blots on his presidency.


      August 4, 2016 at 10:22 am

    • trump is the peace candidate, but the narrative is he’ll start ww3 with russia (despite being a russian agent). the anti-trump hysteria just does not make any sense.


      August 4, 2016 at 10:35 am

    • I think there might be more to it than that. With the forces of Reaction on the offensive all over the globe, they know that American military might is the only thing holding up the Liberal Globalist system.

      Greasy William

      August 4, 2016 at 10:54 am

    • This is just so at odds with reality. For purposes of comparison, I wonder if anyone can tell me Khan’s speech was more shameless than the Mom whose son died in Benghazi. I wonder if anyone can tell me that Trump’s chicken-hawk description is more unfair than “Butcher of Benghazi.”

      Of course Democrats use the pageantry of the military for political gain, but they’re not nearly as shameless Republicans, many of whom are draft-dodgers. Cheney had “more important things to do.” Off the top of my head, the same goes for Gingrich, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Trump.


      August 4, 2016 at 11:41 am

      • Trump says he was opposed to the Iraq war, while Hillary voted for it. He criticizes the Obama/Hillary shoot-first foreign policy in the Middle East and supports leaving dictators like Khadaffi and Hussein in place if they are not at war with us. I don’t see the hypocrisy from Trump, at least not especially so compared to Hillary and the Democrats.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 4, 2016 at 11:46 am

      • “This is just so at odds with reality. For purposes of comparison, I wonder if anyone can tell me Khan’s speech was more shameless than the Mom whose son died in Benghazi. I wonder if anyone can tell me that Trump’s chicken-hawk description is more unfair than “Butcher of Benghazi.””

        Khan’s speech was an attack against Trump, who had nothing to do with how Khan’s son died. Instead, the candidate that Khan supports, Hillary Clinton, voted for the war that lead to the death of his son. Meanwhile Smith’s son died as a direct result both of Clinton’s foreign policy and her failure to do her job when the attack actually happened.

        And of course she lied right to that mother’s face about the reason for the attack.

        Mike Street Station

        August 4, 2016 at 11:55 am

      • Um, perhaps you live in a different “bizzarro” world than the rest of us?

        There is no equating the Benghazi mom with the Khans. Hillary was directly responsible for the death of the poor woman’s son and lied to her face in front of his dead body. That’s beyond despicable – its evil. The mom has an absolute right to call her out. Meanwhile, the fake Khan controversy occupies every waking moment on some media.

        Of course since Donald was also directly responsible for the death of the Khan son…oh, wait….he wasn’t….in fact, had Donald been POTUS the Khans son would still be alive. So what’s his motivation?

        The Benghazi mom spoke from the heart. The Muslim attorney, from the wallet. He’s entwined with the Clintons and makes his money processing Muslim immigrants. Pulls out a constitution but fails to mention that he believes sharia should override it. But of course his so-called “Gold Star” status protects him – what a joke.

        Y’all are sheeple, honestly. The Dems con you guys so easy.


        August 4, 2016 at 12:37 pm

      • @gda,
        No one here is being conned. Some of us criticize The Donald for the nature of his reactions, not for what he stands for, per se.


        August 5, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    • If there’s a Republican President then “war bad! soldiers evil!” If it’s a Dem President, then yeah, whatever, a war, so what, and “soldiers are heroes!” They are so disgusting.

      Your tribal commitments are blinding you to reality. Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, supported Bush’s demented misadventures abroad. What’s far more fascinating is how consistently pro-war Republicans respond to Clinton bombing former Yugoslavia.


      August 4, 2016 at 11:44 am

    • Yep. Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink. The disappeared after Obama got elected. I suppose they’ll be back in out faces when Trump is elected.

      E. Rekshun

      August 4, 2016 at 11:49 am

      • Cindy Sheehan ran for VP against Obama/Biden in 2012 as Roseanne Barr’s running mate. Quirky, but she was evidently trying to do something.

        Greg Pandatshang

        August 4, 2016 at 12:41 pm

      • Actually, Cindy Sheehan was about the only prominent anti-war activist who didn’t go away once Obama was elected. She was a burr in the Democrats’ sides for a while though I haven’t heard anything from her in years. Here’s a Sheehan quote from 2012:

        “I see Obama as another able servant of the 1 percent despite some rhetorical nods to issues that I care about (mostly for votes). I was giving a talk the other day and I said that I ALMOST feel sorry for George Bush — there was so much hatred and invective flung at him (I know, I was guilty of this, too), but he must notice that Obama is continuing most of his policies and has been even congratulated by Dick Cheney, for example, and he must be wondering where’s the call from the left for Obama’s impeachment or trial for crimes against humanity. To my credit, I have been calling for these things for Obama as hard as I did with Bush.”


        August 4, 2016 at 1:44 pm

  7. my fantasy would ban any government employee, contractor, or member of their household from voting, and would only allow a person to appear on the ballot for one office at a time (indiana has this, so pence isn’t running for reelection).


    August 4, 2016 at 10:32 am

  8. The Dems choose to idolize a Muslim whose son died serving in the US military. Of course, they don’t mention the numerous Muslim service personnel who have conspired to share classified information with radical groups or who have murdered their fellow soldiers in the name of Allah (Nidal Hasan, anyone?). Oh no, they disappeared down the old memory hole, as sailer would say.

    Nor do they bring up that Hillary has no concerns about lying to the parents of Americans killed by Muslim terrorists:

    Yet—mainstream media continue to ignore Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi lie to Patricia Smith, who, in something of a political mirror to Khan, spoke at the Republican National Convention.

    “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son,” Smith said. A moment later she addressed Hillary’s lie: “In an email to her daughter (Chelsea) shortly after the attack, Hillary Clinton blamed it on terrorism. But when I saw Hillary Clinton at Sean’s coffin ceremony, just days later, she looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible. Since then, I have repeatedly asked Hillary Clinton to explain to me the real reason why my son is dead. I’m still waiting.”

    Left wing media railed—against Smith.


    BTW, I really liked the movie.

    Black Death

    August 4, 2016 at 10:35 am

    • “The Dems choose to idolize a Muslim whose son died serving in the US military.”

      The only thing more ludicrous than a liberal waving a copy of the Constitution is a Mohammedan waving one.

      Lewis Medlock

      August 4, 2016 at 4:04 pm

  9. but this week, ironically, Democrats are indeed saying that there’s something wrong with not serving in the military

    Yea, funny how that works. Democrats berated GWB for only serving in the reserve. Obama got a complete pass. And, now again, military service is a big deal.

    E. Rekshun

    August 4, 2016 at 11:43 am

  10. I’ve sometimes wondered how high the US unemployment rate would be if the US military was cut by 50%, along with the defense contractors. The military and the never-ending foreign wars and conflicts have become a successful 50-year jobs program; and much better for the economy than any Federal Reserve meddling.

    One large US government defense contractor has employed four generations of my family; each of which is enjoying a full defined benefit pension, with the oldest paying out now for over forty years! Every dollar of revenue from that defense contractor was obtained from Uncle Sam.

    E. Rekshun

    August 4, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    • On the other hand, the government is very responsible with Social Security and Medicare. Maybe if we cut Social Security by 50%, the deadbeat elderly will go back to work.


      August 4, 2016 at 1:31 pm

  11. In 1986, right after watching Top Gun, I marched down to the USMC recruiter and began the process of trying to get a commission as an officer. I flunked the eye test and wouldn’t qualify as a pilot. So, I went back to my code monkey job at a large military defense contractor.

    E. Rekshun

    August 4, 2016 at 4:47 pm

  12. I’ve heard the claim that Bill Clinton was CIA connected since his college days, so there’s a question of whether you can call his time spent collecting counter-intelligence for the USG straight up “draft dodging”.


    August 4, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    • Yea, the CIA is always recruiting Georgetown undergrads from rural Arkansas as super-double secret spooks.

      E. Rekshun

      August 4, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    • Hadn’t heard that but could help explain the Rhodes Scholarship and later the CIA cocaine for the Contras operation that probably ran through Arkansas in the 80s. Not many people remember this but in the runup to the Democratic primary in 92 many in the Democratic party thought it was hopeless and many A-listers declined to run. Probably the only reason why a “new democrat” neo-liberal was going to get the nomination in the first place.

  13. A possible side-effect of a “Starship Troopers” government might be fewer wars if the people doing the voting were the ones doing the dying.


    August 5, 2016 at 12:34 am

  14. David Pinsen

    August 5, 2016 at 1:09 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: