That is the most ridiculous, trite, non-argument I have ever heard. The fact that you make such an idiotic argument means you're either mendacious or ignorant. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. So let me clarify with an analogy.

Let us say Joe is a member of a baseball team. He is the only member to have achieved his status through skill and hard work. Everyone else on the team is provided by some external entity based upon criteria unrelated to success in the sport. Needless to say, his team loses a lot of games.

But one day Joe is at bat and he knocks the ball out of the park. He's a hero - he won the game! Expecting accolades, Joe heads back to the dugout. Instead he is met by someone like you, who presents him with two greetings:

1. Hey Joe! The fact that you won obviously means that 'the system works'!
2. Hey Joe! If you won this game, obviously it's your fault we lost all the other games!

Both are, of course, ridiculous and fallacious conclusions.

To bring it home: this result is an example of a free market operating where it can in America. And while yes, free markets do have problems, to claim that 'anything bad that happens is also the free market' requires you to be blinded by the incredible level of government intervention in the American market. It also requires you to ignore the uninterrupted stream of failures and catastrophes caused by government intervention, including but not limited to the housing boom and bust and the ongoing financial crisis.

Rational people are capable of evaluating these results objectively and giving points to the free market where it succeeds and points to government intervention where it succeeds. People with a grasp of history and basic math realize that the former is a much more common occurrence than the latter.

I will never understand this kneejerk, uninformed reaction people like you have to free markets. You're surrounded by the benefits of this system every single day and yet all you can offer are dirty looks and words of dismissal.

Why is it that whenever some over-sensitive PC-ified professional grievance monger (like everyone at 'gay gamer', a hilarious site that points up their differences to scream about people who point up their differences) sees anything involving women that they don't like, they dismiss it as 'sexist, misogynist, and exploitive'? It seems our standards for these terms have fallen incredibly far when 'winning a date' with someone qualifies, seeing a woman dressed in revealing clothes qualifies, participating in a beauty contest qualifies - what isn't 'sexism, misogyny, and exploitation' to these tiresome people? Surely this whole thing was embarrassingly juvenile. But give the identity politics nonsense a break. Advertising is objectifying and exploitive. That's the whole point.

The truly exciting thing here is that it's yet another 'green' innovation brought to you by the private free market. Just like the Prius itself, this was the result of a business listening to its customers and responding to a demand. It was not brought about by government mandate or fiat. People roll their eyes when you talk about the wonder of the free market, unaware of its massive and beneficial daily impact on their lives. This is why you have to fight to keep it.

When I saw the headline I thought, "Gee, I bet some left-wing douchebag is going to make a lame Palin joke". And I was right. You left-wing douchebags are so predictable. By the way, how's your guy working out? Oh yeah, he's a complete failure. But keep making fun of things Palin didn't say - it shows how smart you are.

Which is precisely why you don't listen to the people. The people do not know anything about military strategy, and survival is a realm in which military strategy is paramount. If you establish a home base you can be destroyed easily. This is one of the more ridiculous parts of the later episodes.

Sure, in the same way that killing someone in self-defense is 'taking an active role in pushing your species to extinction'. If someone is more concerned with their own well-being than with the survival of their species, they are not worth the time and effort to save them.

And that's precisely the issue: in order to make the peace-and-flowers hippie angle seem the 'right' one, they have to be dishonest about the actual right one. It isn't a choice of 'throw yourself against the machines until dead' or 'start a democracy'. The proper choice in this situation is martial law. Yet we've been brainwashed into having a kneejerk negative reaction to martial law. It is always painted in a fascist light, as if it were something imposed on a whim for the betterment of some evil behind-the-scenes puppetmaster. Martial law is military rule in times of great risk and uncertainty.

Yes, well, a lot of people despise this mealy-mouth nonsense. It gets nobody anywhere. And there's already enough of that junk on TV, in books, in movies. That's the problem with this insidious liberal nonsense - it's like cancer eating away at our society.

As I stated above, the reason it is particularly ridiculous in this instance is because the situation is black and white. There is no gray. It's man versus ruthless killing machines. There is no room for tweed-wearing, beard-stroking, pipe-smoking post-graduate students sitting around and mulling the 'humanity' of the killing machines.