Sad but True

[room5047]

hey dufault -

ditto on what you said. justice demands that folks should keep what they earn, but justice also demands a level playing field. it's a tough cookie.

as for the whole 'dont call the CinC a criminal before the courts do' thing, you'd think that goes without saying, but i remember being in just a few years ago when it was chic to hate the president in every ready room and wardroom. oh, but now that we got a repub who loves the military, ya gotta watch what you say, right? some of the people who are telling us not to "disrespect" W. are hypocrites when it's not their boy in the government doing their bidding. like how this whole thing got off on an anti-Hillary thread. So it's okay to diss a dem Senator, but not the Big Cheez? gimme a break, we work for both of 'em. so either let us speak to our heart's content about any politician, or conservative-leaning servicepeople need to holds their tongues as much as the rest of us.

oh, and before everyone starts telling us, 'oh, well the clintons were different, we didn't HAVE to respect him cuz he was bad,' lemme see... lying about a blow job from an intern, versus... using nonexistent and discredited intel about weapons and terrorist links to justify preemptive attack... you may or may not agree. (though, like me, you'll fulfill your oath and go where you're told either way.)

the point is, everybody's always trying to make exceptions for the things and people they hate or love. that's why these political discussions usually end up heated, rude, and with no converts, and THAT is probably why "Naval Customs, Traditions, and Courtesies" generally recommends officers not talking about things like this, which are controlled at a higher paygrade than the rest of us anyway. arguing politics is about as productive as arguing about weather, only with greater potential for violence.

show me your WAARRRR face!

 

[Dunedan]

Why can't we just have a really frickin big military to "provide for the common defense", and then leave the States alone to "promote the general welfare"? I like that idea...

Ummm...yeah

 

[jaerose]

kimphil...sorry if it seemed I was flaming, I wasn't and I didn't mean to come off that way. I'm one of those people who likes to take up an opposing argument and debate. Maybe I should go to lawschool later =)

Dufault...I've never read Ayn Rand, but maybe I will go to Borders, get some coffee and read it while I'm there so as to save some cash. I friend of mine studied for the MCATS like that and got into IU med school. Also, I didn't mention the CinC.

esday...I don't complain about my taxes either since I have benefited from the programs. I don't really lose that much anyway. Plus, you're right about tax loopholes.

room5047...good points about respecting all of our 'bosses.' I just like to argue =) Hopefully I'll fight the urge in OCS so I don't get my butt kicked, or worse.

Just so you all know, though, I respect all of you and your opinions!

Your Brother in Arms,
JR

 

[esday1]

UINavy: one thing that's not different between the President and the Junior Senator from New York is that contemptuous words toward either of them fall under the scope of the Universal Code of Military Justice. From a nice bit of research FLMarine did earlier:

For those who haven't read the UCMJ yet I'll post the part about bashing the President and others.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

--Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.--

So, bashing a Senator is just as much of a punishable offense as bashing the President. Personally, I doubt that anyone really gives a rat's ass who's bashing who on an internet discussion board, and any officer who would actually initiate a court-martial based on something someone posted here probably has too much time on their hands. My guess is that if you've got gripes with the political leadership it's probably better to let it out here where it's semi-anonymous and relatively ineffectual rather than somewhere where it might actually effect the performance of your duty. But, I think that the UCMJ makes it pretty clear, as Room5047 explained earlier, that you can't go around saying that you can bash politicians you don't like but you can't say anything mean about those you do.

However, noting both that I am still a civilian, and that the Attorney General does not appear on that list of persons protected from "contemptuous" speech, I should mention that John Ashcroft has some serious unresolved sexual issues. I mean, spending $8 grand to cover up the boobies on a statue? Something's not right about that.

"Peace on earth to men of goodwill. All others stand by."

 

[jaerose]

Maybe Ashcroft just had extra funds in the budget that he didn't want to lose for not using...you know, like the Navy's $100.00 hammers.

JR

 

[esday1]

Well, if I had tens of thousands of extra dollars kicking around my department's budget, I would probably spend it on more statues with boobies before I'd spend it on drapes to cover them up. But that's just my opinion.

 

[ben]

Hey yall, I got an email that's a lot like the first post. It's way long or I'd just post it...

It talks a lot about the general state of mind of the two major parties. It's definitely pro-republican.

Email me if you want a copy of it. It's really pretty good.

 

[DBLang]

I wish it was like your story in the real world E5B, unfortunately its not. Intelligent motivated people work hard and sweat all day yet are still at the bottom of the economic ladder because the world isn't perfect. At the same time there are foolish assholes that dont deserve a damn thing who have vast amounts of wealth. It's horrible and I would like to change it but it's no easy feat obviously.

Bottom line is, I'm not down with either communism or the '**** em' attitude.

 

[mbeaser]

Just a note that it is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not Universal, and while the Senate has 100 members, there are about 440 in the House, both of which together comprise Congress. I'll close my fount of mostly useless information now.
Missy

 

[Dunedan]

What if you happen to think that some members of Congress are domestic enemies of the Constitution? Perhaps the appropriate method of defending the Constitution from them is to vote for someone else? I dunno...
-A

Ummm...yeah

 

[davidsin]

I love those ANTS!!!--Strong, resourceful, collaborative, diligent, determined, hard working. They've been dealt a crappy hand individually, yet they do so well collaboratively. They acomplish a lot with very little. They're quitely admired by the grasshoppers. They don't get handouts, ask for pity, complain about rugged terrain, heat, excessive labor, humping around with heavy loads or the lazy fat queen. Their loyalty to each other is unquestionable. They're organized and highly regimented. They can take down hornets, spiders, pretty much any arthropod in their way. What can I say about ants—they remind me of Marines!

------------------------------------------
Semper Fi

 

[kimphil]

First, I must tell my liberal brother esday to fight on!

Hope to meet you at OCC 184. And good to hear from you room5047!

This was such a boring topic until I came in. Glad to stir things up!

First of all, let's get the record straight. The rich in America probably pay too little, not too much, in taxes. I'm not going to engage in a debate about what percentage is too little or too much, but the rich in America pay less than their counterparts in Canada, England, France, Germany, and quite a few other European countries.

Second, as esday points out, the rich are taxed a smaller percentage of their income than the poor. Furthermore, thanks to the Bush tax "cuts," the poor are likely in the future to pay more of their income to taxes than the rich, as well as likely to suffer in the form of higher interest rates and less public services than the rich.

Third, something that Republicans on this site don't seem to realize, the rich paid a smaller percentage of their income to taxes during the 90s thanks to the Clinton tax cuts! Yes, you read that right, Clinton. Remember the cut in the long-term capital gains rate? Clinton signed that legislation, and the rich profited from it. No one seemed to complain about the tax rate for the rich until Bush became President.

Not one prominent Democrat has advocated a tax increase. But thanks to Republican doublespeak, if you don't support the Republican's irresponsible tax cuts, you are supporting a tax "increase."

While people on this site and in general complain about what is collectively referred to as "affirmative action" the fact is that most of the preferences that, for instance, universities give favor the majority of white applicants (legacies, preferences for athletes, geographic preferences, etc). I brought up the President to point out the "white" affirmative action he has systematically recieved throughout his life which Republicans fail to criticize. There's a word for that, its called hypocrisy.

As far as Ayn Rand is concerned, buy the book. You can't casually read "Atlas Shrugged" at B&N.

PS-- The Clintons were cleared in Whitewater. Ken Starr and the vast right-wing conspiracy used the full resources of the federal government and tens of millions of dolloars in public funds and could only nail him for getting blow jobs in the White House. Your money at work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.

 

[jaerose]

No thanks...I can casually read the Rand book at a Borders. Also...I'm proud to be an American and not European (is Canada a part of Europe now??? Just kidding)! I just think it's funny that if I come out of a lower income family (which I do), bust my butt, build a good business and grow my wealth, then you think I shouldn't want to keep my hard earned money. Don't get me wrong, I will give back and help others, but wanting to have a good life and protect what you've worked hard for is wrong...and you think I should want to give away even more money that I earned? It doesn't make sense to me. I hope everyone on the forum does well financially, including you, kimphil, but I want to see you voluntarily give 60-75% of your income away after you've worked hard to achieve wealth. When this happens, then I'll buy into your argument. It's like U2 and a lot of other 'bleeding heart' celebrities...tell America to relieve third world debt and do this and that, but I'm not buying it until I see Bono and Susan Sarandan move out of their $10MM homes and start giving up half of their $100MM net worths to help out. Hmmm...yes, let me tell all of you to help the poor and needy while I drive around in a $500K Ferrari. Not to mention that these people would also qualify as hypocrites...as they use all the loopholes you speak of...like deducting charitable donations, sheilding assests through corporations and trying to lower their taxes. It's all a bunch of hot air when you get down to it. Also, I am wondering how 39.5% is less than 15%...please feel free to explain this math to me.

As for politics, I'll just agree to disagree with you on most points. I know that everyone here is going to have opinions on what person is doing the right things and what person is not...and we're all very persistent and stubborn (why else would we be where we are?), so I'm sure we're not going to concede to each other's argument. God Bless and Good Night!

JR

BTW...I didn't pay for the cash used in Slick Willie's BJ investigation...I was in college and didn't even have to file =)

 

[room5047]

Screw Atlas Shrugged. I'm a Rand fan and that book, even with its finer points, just rambles and bitches. Go for "The Fountainhead" if you want to be entertained and uplifted.

And JR, let's not seriously debate who spends more money and effort on philanthropy - the independent investors and ceo's, or the entertainers. the point is, there IS a middle ground, where the blessed, fortunate, and damned talented can have their houses, ferrari's and cool gadgets, be accustomed to a pretty phat standard of living, AND still exercise all the social responsibilities that come with the liberties of the free market.

the point is, you can never say "i earned it all fair and square", because no man is an island - it took society's norms, government's laws, and a good amount of luck MIXED IN with your hard work and ingenuity to make you successful. of course you have every right to a "fair share" of what you make, the only point everybody disagrees on is what a fair share is.

call me a bleeding heart and sue me for thinking i owe a little bit more (not just money, but consideration and labor) to the overwhelming majority of the country/world that will never be the jetset as long as they are ignored and held down. and yes, that happens. visit haiti, or the neighborhood my high school was in, or go three blocks north of my college to harlem, and tell me that all those citizen-subjects can work their way out of it, "if they only want to".

in a perfect world, we would all have that sense of collective responsibility that tries not to leave anyone behind, but you know that's not the case. yes, there are some people you can't help or teach, but there are a hell of a lot more who use that as an excuse not to try. many of the rest of the world looks at us in horror because of the way we treat the poor, homeless, and uneducated at home and abroad. i mean, c'mon, we are the greatest nation in the world, no debating that, but deep down i bet most of us are attracted to the military because to us it represents a higher moral code than we see in our daily civilian society - duty, honor, brotherhood, teamwork, the sorts of things that, if we as civvies really put into practice, then hell yes there'd be no need for government taxation. so teach you children right, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

of course, what all of this assumes, as esday points out, is that tax revenues even help level the playing field, which right now they don't. they're all going to the new killer platforms that we hope to fly and shoot, which may be cool, but is probably a case of screwed-up priorities in this country. 's funny, for all the vitriol poured on "tax and spend" dems, now we have a "don't tax, but spend more" GOP mentality, which would get me hauled to court and thrown in the brig if i tried it with my own finances for a couple of months. but that's okay, maybe we'll just outspend the terrorists, and declare victory when they go bankrupt first! it may cost 8 trillion in deficit spending, keep the dollar in the pooper and kill millions of jobs, but hey, how can we lose with such visionary economic leadership?

show me your WAARRRR face!

 

[wildflyin69]

I grew up in NYC and have been to Harlem quite often, as i have friends who live there and go to school with me. Neighborhoods in my native Brooklyn are similiar to those in Harlem as well. While for the older generation it may be to late, the younger ones CAN work their way out of their current situation, just many of them choose not to accept it. There are thousands of scholarships and programs geared towards the betterment of minorities in this country, and every year, thousands go unfilled because of the lack of interest by these groups. There are also many academic scholarships these people could apply for, but choose not to because apparently in these communtites, being smart is some sort of a crime. So yes, they have the tools it takes to be successful, I think the vast majority of them CHOOSE not to make use of them. This opinion is based off the what I hear my mother telling me about the children she teaches in her school (which I have witnessed myself as well) where they believe any African American who chose to educate themselves is "selling out, and trying to be white". As long as this mentality exists among minorities (I'm not limiting this to African Americans, because I know my own spanish people do the same, and so do other groups) then the people who have worked for their money should not be forced to give it up to those that didn't try.

"Push the stick foward, the houses get bigger; pull back, the houses get smaller... unless you keep pulling back, then they get bigger again."