I have my own set of beliefs, however they are not immovable, and they change with information. But the only one that doesn't change is with our creator and his son.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Opinions on Kerry
- Thread starter NeoCortex
- Start date
- Status
Who said America is about being equal? If you mean being treated equal as a human being, sure. Economically, no way. There are poor, middles class, wealthy, rich, whatever. This is the land of opportunity and if you want wealth, go after it. The wealthy and successful shouldn't be punished for making more money. They earned it, it's theirs. If they don't want to share, so be it. If I were rich and wanted to give to the needy, I would do it through an organization of my choice and not through the government. That way I know my money is being used for its intended purpose. If I work hard for my money, I should have the "Free Will" to use it as I desire, especially if I want an SUV.
The government shouldn't have to bail people out of poverty. It should of course try to increase jobs that will enable them on their own merit to pull themselves out of poverty. That will be an issue this year and the voters can decide what they want.
I can see where your mind is going with this, and at the basic level it's correct. Sure, close-mindedness is bad, such as thinking all Puerto Ricans are lazy, or all Arabs are terrorists, etc. Pick your racist idea. These obviously lead to problems. However, saying that a human being has the right to not be beaten is not close-mindedness. It comes from a fundamental right to exist. This right is not given to you by a government, or an idealogy, or a political stance...it's just there. It can be taken away though, by yourself or by another person or entity.
We don't "police" those areas because there is nothing of national interest there to warrant our participation. That is what drives everything, and every country, national interest. It sounds selfish, crude, and hard. It is. That's life. Do you want to pay, in money and blood, to police everyplace in the world?
The majority of wars in history were caused by religion, usually as a veil to something else insidious. Another major cause, in conjunction with and seperate, are language barriers. What happens when you change the inflection in your voice when speaking Japanese or Chinese? Oops, you just pissed someone off. Or you pick a wrong word in English. Uh oh, you're getting your azz beat. Of course, then we get the famous land grabs, megalomaniacs, etc. There are a variety of causes.
Just because the Koran says that you should take the sword of Allah to the infidel, does that mean you're going to sit by and let Al Qaeda kill you because it is not your place to pass judgement on them? Or how about a canibal tribe that wants to use you as a human sacrifice? The list goes on.
If you going to warrant participation in a area because you interest is at stake, you have to come up with a better reason than they are oppressed.
vegita1220
User
Somebody asked why in the military it's perceived as "bad" to be voting Democrat. Here's my interpretation:
Recent military record for Dem presidents:
Carter-screws the pooch at Desert One. However, arguably it wasn't really his fault, we were just too screwed up back then.
LBJ-Slaps restrictive RoEs on US troops. Conducts operations to 'accomodate' enemy(Rolling Thunder) rather than kill the F'er good and dead. Administration tries to "micromanage" war. Although, again we were pretty screwed up back then.
Clinton-Has the most dominant military force in the world. Bosnia, North Korea and Iraq "incidents." North Korea breaks numerous treaties. We give them oil and food for it. Iraq breaks inspections treaties. We bomb them for a few days to "teach them a lesson." Nothing else is done.
Republican record:
Reagan-Grenada-reportedly the crap hit the fan but ultimately successful in objectives. Brought down Soviet Union. Created foundation for Navy of today, and we're still using plenty of the stuff we bought then.
Bush I-Desert Storm-decisive action. Kicked Saddam's ass. Interestingly, same general groups which protested Desert Storm One later protest Desert Storm Two(Iraqi Freedom).
Bush II-Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Beat the crap out of the bastards who Fed with us or planned to do so. Has increased defense spending to modernize military for expected missions.
Forget being a pilot or an officer. Just pretend you're the average Joe Schmoe serviceman, could be any rank or specialty. As far as you know, you're supposed to vote for the guy who best represents you or will lead the country in a way you want it to go. Given these records, who would you vote for?
Recent military record for Dem presidents:
Carter-screws the pooch at Desert One. However, arguably it wasn't really his fault, we were just too screwed up back then.
LBJ-Slaps restrictive RoEs on US troops. Conducts operations to 'accomodate' enemy(Rolling Thunder) rather than kill the F'er good and dead. Administration tries to "micromanage" war. Although, again we were pretty screwed up back then.
Clinton-Has the most dominant military force in the world. Bosnia, North Korea and Iraq "incidents." North Korea breaks numerous treaties. We give them oil and food for it. Iraq breaks inspections treaties. We bomb them for a few days to "teach them a lesson." Nothing else is done.
Republican record:
Reagan-Grenada-reportedly the crap hit the fan but ultimately successful in objectives. Brought down Soviet Union. Created foundation for Navy of today, and we're still using plenty of the stuff we bought then.
Bush I-Desert Storm-decisive action. Kicked Saddam's ass. Interestingly, same general groups which protested Desert Storm One later protest Desert Storm Two(Iraqi Freedom).
Bush II-Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Beat the crap out of the bastards who Fed with us or planned to do so. Has increased defense spending to modernize military for expected missions.
Forget being a pilot or an officer. Just pretend you're the average Joe Schmoe serviceman, could be any rank or specialty. As far as you know, you're supposed to vote for the guy who best represents you or will lead the country in a way you want it to go. Given these records, who would you vote for?
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
Bush II- 2.4 million jobs lost during his first four years (my father included). Worst act of terrorism ever committed on American soil occured during his watch. Sanctioned legal bigotry by supporting an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment. Backed out of the Kyoto Treaty, thinks the 'jury is still out' on evolution, and holds as a virtue the fact he does not read daily newspapers.
Can I vote for Clinton?
Bunk 22, Fly Navy: I have absolutely nothing against working people keeping their money. But, (and there always is a but!) the problem comes when these CEOs and heads of industry are paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year, while their employees get paid incredibly small fractions of that amount. Can you honestly tell me that people like Dick Grasso, Dennis Kozlowski (sp?), Ken Lay, actually earn the hundreds of millions of dollars a year they make? Once you make over, say, 20 million a year, does another 50 mil matter? Is that right? Is that morally correct?
As Harry Truman once said, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."
EDIT: I think a few of you were arguing over welfare earlier. Again, is there something wrong with helping a fellow person in his/her time of need? Wouldn't you want the same 'compassion' were you in their shoes? "Treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated?" I agree, in practice it may not always be perfect, but is there something basically morally wrong with the concept of welfare itself?
Can I vote for Clinton?
Bunk 22, Fly Navy: I have absolutely nothing against working people keeping their money. But, (and there always is a but!) the problem comes when these CEOs and heads of industry are paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year, while their employees get paid incredibly small fractions of that amount. Can you honestly tell me that people like Dick Grasso, Dennis Kozlowski (sp?), Ken Lay, actually earn the hundreds of millions of dollars a year they make? Once you make over, say, 20 million a year, does another 50 mil matter? Is that right? Is that morally correct?
As Harry Truman once said, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."
EDIT: I think a few of you were arguing over welfare earlier. Again, is there something wrong with helping a fellow person in his/her time of need? Wouldn't you want the same 'compassion' were you in their shoes? "Treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated?" I agree, in practice it may not always be perfect, but is there something basically morally wrong with the concept of welfare itself?
Akamifieldman...Actually no... I dont't have a problem with helping my fellow man. I actually do contribute a fair amount to charity through various worthy causes. It doesn't take a government social program to help people. I'm sick and tired of seeing dollars coming out of my check to help support those who misuse the system. The government has no business in charity. Living at TBS, I got to see a prime example of this. Around northern Virginia, a relatively successful person can rent a pretty decent two-bedroom apartment for around $900-$1100 a month. HOWEVER, if you are determined to be on a "low income" status, the government has provided for you to be able to rent a three-bedroom LUXURY TOWNHOME for around $500-$700 a month. I have no problem with helping people pull themselves out of a bind, but this is ridiculous. Where is the motivation to better yourself? Why should they even try to get off this program if the government is going to all but furnish them with a nicer place than that which is available to those of us who actually work for a living?
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
And I agree with your cited example that in practice, it may not always work flawlessly. But, in a country such as ours, doesn't government have an obligation to help its citizens? Your point is valid, there needs to be incentive for people to get jobs, but while its programs may not work perfectly, isn't a little something for those truely in need better than nothing for anyone? Doesn't government exist to better the welfare (no pun intended!) of its people?
Shouldn't government at least try to make our lives better?
I think we agree that the basic idea is correct, but the way it is executed is not perfect. True?
Shouldn't government at least try to make our lives better?
I think we agree that the basic idea is correct, but the way it is executed is not perfect. True?
What I believe is people need to use their God given talent, ability, and determination to succeed in life. Guess what, some are going to be more successful than others. That's life. Depending on the government is not the way to do it. I don't need daddy taking care of me. I'll make my life better by putting forth the effort to do so. There comes a point in life where someone says they are either going to work hard and achieve or they chose to take the opposite approach. It's called free will and everyone has it.
"Doesn't government exist to better the welfare (no pun intended!) of its people?"
"Shouldn't government at least try to make our lives better?"
NO. Absolutely NOT. That is NOT the function of government. A government creates laws, enforces laws, protects the country, etc. It should not be a social program because it does not work.
There is nothing wrong with helping your fellow man. However, you should not force people to do so by taxing them. Private charity is FAR more successful at helping people than any government program can hope to be, it is like that in virtually all aspects of society. Ever seen public hospitals versus private?
You think welfare works? I've seen welfare first hand in my own extended family. They use and abuse the system and live better lives than honest, working families. Go take a look around at what a welfare state does to society. The current system allows people to live better off the government (read as: my money, your money, Bunk's money, the webmaster's money, etc), then they can with a minimum wage job. THAT IS WRONG AND DISGUSTING. Can you not see why?
By the way, nice try with the 9/11 slip on Bush. You think he was at fault for that? Do you really believe that? Do you understand what happened to our intelligence and military infrastructure under former President Clinton's command? Do you know what Carter did to it? They are the reason we have no HUMINT to speak of. Blaming Bush for 9/11 is like praising Clinton for the great economy that landed in his lap when he took office.
You're idealistic, which is natural. I'm not much older than you, so it may sound like bullsh!t coming from me, but I grew up the hard way and I've seen the evils of what you preach first hand. No one can expect to change a person's mind over the internet, but I hope you can open your eyes and think through what you've said. Think, do not use your emotions or your feelings, use your head.
Please, pick up "Atlas Shrugged". With your current views, it'll piss you off something rich when you start it, but maybe you'll end up seeing the point.
"Shouldn't government at least try to make our lives better?"
NO. Absolutely NOT. That is NOT the function of government. A government creates laws, enforces laws, protects the country, etc. It should not be a social program because it does not work.
There is nothing wrong with helping your fellow man. However, you should not force people to do so by taxing them. Private charity is FAR more successful at helping people than any government program can hope to be, it is like that in virtually all aspects of society. Ever seen public hospitals versus private?
You think welfare works? I've seen welfare first hand in my own extended family. They use and abuse the system and live better lives than honest, working families. Go take a look around at what a welfare state does to society. The current system allows people to live better off the government (read as: my money, your money, Bunk's money, the webmaster's money, etc), then they can with a minimum wage job. THAT IS WRONG AND DISGUSTING. Can you not see why?
By the way, nice try with the 9/11 slip on Bush. You think he was at fault for that? Do you really believe that? Do you understand what happened to our intelligence and military infrastructure under former President Clinton's command? Do you know what Carter did to it? They are the reason we have no HUMINT to speak of. Blaming Bush for 9/11 is like praising Clinton for the great economy that landed in his lap when he took office.
You're idealistic, which is natural. I'm not much older than you, so it may sound like bullsh!t coming from me, but I grew up the hard way and I've seen the evils of what you preach first hand. No one can expect to change a person's mind over the internet, but I hope you can open your eyes and think through what you've said. Think, do not use your emotions or your feelings, use your head.
Please, pick up "Atlas Shrugged". With your current views, it'll piss you off something rich when you start it, but maybe you'll end up seeing the point.
I hate to chime in late here but I just couldn't resist. It would take way too long to try to refute each and every thing I disagree with so I'll just take the last post by akamifeldman. I'm by no means saying that I know all things. Just take a second to see the other side of your argument.
Can you tell me something specific that President Bush did that caused your dad to lose his job? I will be shocked if you can. Economies change over time, and to say that President Bush directly caused the 2.4 million jobs being lost is riduculous. For one thing, Bush inherited an economy that had been overseen by the Clinton administration for the previous EIGHT years. I don't think any president can change eight years worth of anything in half the time.
Also, have you ever taken an economics class? The president doesn't really have all that much control over the economy. For one thing, there's a man named Alan Greenspan who knows a lot more about it and can do a lot more to change what happens in the economy. Also, our economy is heavily influenced by what happens in the financial markets. Take the NYSE (stock market) for example. It is NOT PREDICTABLE. If people knew what the economy was going to do before it happened, we would all be millionaires. A president can't predict the stock market, much less the entire economy. Bush has worked hard to cut taxes and put people's money back into their pockets. This way each individual person has more money to buy whatever it is they want or need most. Oh, and I almost forgot - presidents don't write laws. That is what Congress is for. Have you considered this fact?
OK, I'm off my soapbox now. I didn't set out to offend you akamifeldman, I just want to try to help you see the other side of the argument. Hopefully that's what will happen.
It sucks that your dad lost his job. My dad has been through 3 jobs in the last 10 years. Let's think about losing a job for a second...
Can you tell me something specific that President Bush did that caused your dad to lose his job? I will be shocked if you can. Economies change over time, and to say that President Bush directly caused the 2.4 million jobs being lost is riduculous. For one thing, Bush inherited an economy that had been overseen by the Clinton administration for the previous EIGHT years. I don't think any president can change eight years worth of anything in half the time.
Also, have you ever taken an economics class? The president doesn't really have all that much control over the economy. For one thing, there's a man named Alan Greenspan who knows a lot more about it and can do a lot more to change what happens in the economy. Also, our economy is heavily influenced by what happens in the financial markets. Take the NYSE (stock market) for example. It is NOT PREDICTABLE. If people knew what the economy was going to do before it happened, we would all be millionaires. A president can't predict the stock market, much less the entire economy. Bush has worked hard to cut taxes and put people's money back into their pockets. This way each individual person has more money to buy whatever it is they want or need most. Oh, and I almost forgot - presidents don't write laws. That is what Congress is for. Have you considered this fact?
Are you implying that 9/11 could have been foreseen? I certainly didn't exptect it. Granted, I'm not privy to CIA secret reports, but I don't really see much that could have been done to prevent what happened. Also, if I'm not mistaken, more Democrats have tried to reduce funding for agencies like the CIA. Wasn't it Clinton who initiated one of the largest RIF's in recent military history?
Bush took a stand for something he believes in. While I happen to agree with him, I don't think that President Bush and I are bigots. Let's just leave it at that.
I don't know what the Kyoto Treaty is so I won't comment on it. Is evolution a critical factor in deciding how to make presidential decisions? Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? Do you not think that Bush's advisors are capable of informing him of all important issues? Do you not think his advisors have better information than the general public?
Maybe I'm just uneducated, but I don't have any friends who make hundreds of millions of dollars. Heck, lots of businesses don't generate even one hundred million dollars, let alone the CEO by himself. What I'm getting at here is that while there may be some heartless CEO's who make LOTS of money, I think you are leaving out part of the story. Most of the CEO's who I have studied made all of their money with lots of hard work and a little bit of luck. And the CEO's who "get hundreds of millions of dollars" - how much do the companies they work for generate? If a CEO is getting that much of a salary, the company must be making BILLIONS. Have you ever studied finance? If the stockholders of a company don't like the management, they can reduce his salary or have her fired. It's pretty simple - stockholders feel like managers' salaries fairly reward their work or they wouldn't allow the salaries to continue being paid. And about the $20 million versus $70 million thing- would you really want the government telling you what to do with 70% of your income? I wouldn't.
I agree with you on this one. Some form of welfare is necessary. Sure, there are plenty of lazy people who take advantage of the welfare programs that America offers. There are also people who genuinely need help getting back on their feet. What we need is a welfare system that requires people to show initiative. If someone isn't going to work hard, I don't want to give up part of my salary that I actually worked for. But, on the other hand, I don't mind helping someone out if they're genuinely in need and willing to do something for the money they get. That's why I prefer giving to a charity of my chosing instead of the government taking money directly out of my paycheck.
OK, I'm off my soapbox now. I didn't set out to offend you akamifeldman, I just want to try to help you see the other side of the argument. Hopefully that's what will happen.
gagirl
Registered User
In regards to a previous post about the 500 caskets that Bush needs to answer to...I say who answers for the 2000+ from 9/11? Isn't that his answer? Like I said earlier...USS Cole, Khobar towers,2 African embassies and the 1st WTC bombing. Noone answered those attacks and look what happened. 9/11.
Do you think we ought to wait until we suffer another 9/11 and then act or take care of the cancer now? I'm glad I have a President that is trying to make the future for my children as safe as possible. He takes a stand and holds his ground. Of course there will be anger from the Iraq invasion but hopefully someone will see we want the best for them. There is no more Saddam or his sons! I hate that there are 500 plus caskets more than anything, but that's why our military is so great! Most love this country and will do ANYTHING to protect it.
God bless our President and especially our troops!
Amen to bcgeib! Great post!
Do you think we ought to wait until we suffer another 9/11 and then act or take care of the cancer now? I'm glad I have a President that is trying to make the future for my children as safe as possible. He takes a stand and holds his ground. Of course there will be anger from the Iraq invasion but hopefully someone will see we want the best for them. There is no more Saddam or his sons! I hate that there are 500 plus caskets more than anything, but that's why our military is so great! Most love this country and will do ANYTHING to protect it.
God bless our President and especially our troops!
Amen to bcgeib! Great post!
- Status