The Minnesota chapter MENSA is overflowing with new members.
I can’t imagine the odds of this: Different letters in different papers, published on the same day both illustrating the same incredible grasp of logical analysis.
God love the SPPP for printing this rare example of brilliance:
Low taxes vs. saving lives
A Pentagon study reveals that the lives of hundreds of our troops could have been saved if the latest technology body armor and armored vehicles had been made available ("Some soldiers say more armor would decrease mobility," Jan. 8). Although the improved armor slightly restricts movement, it's clear most troops want it and the better armored vehicles.
Clearly, the big reason for the Pentagon's dilatory performance is the cost. Apparently, a low tax rate is more important than the best armor. Yes, indeed: "We support our troops." We can prove it by the little ribbons on our cars.
“Clearly, the big reason for the Pentagon's dilatory performance is the cost. Apparently, a low tax rate is more important than the best armor."
Oh, shut the hell up you jackass.
Can you cite a source to prove your contention? If not, go the hell away.
First of all, the Pentagon has yet to complain about being under-funded due to tax cuts. Secondly, read the reports again and you’ll find that many, if not most soldiers don’t want the armor because it restricts movement.
I don’t’ know how you can write, “It’s clear most troops want it [more armor]…”. Clear to whom and based on what?
I get such a kick out of you Lefties. You take one anecdote and make it a universal by applying it across the board. Are you that stupid or do you believe the rest of us are.
You think it’s the latter and by doing so prove the former.
Maybe you and Bill can take a hike together.