Look again...

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

> Last map I saw, Michigan was still part of the USA.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:411C2EB1.90AE5529@***.net...
>
>> Military personal taking advantage of the school plans, probably
>>have paid a disproportionately high taxes from the Greatest Generation,
>>through Desert Storm. Of course, there were those over educated draft
>>dodgers communist, that fled our country for yours.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>>Stack has a good point. Maybe only military personnel should pay taxes,
>
> then
>
>>>no one but them can say how their taxes are spent.
>
>
>

 

<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
> The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
> nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
> business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>
> The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
> serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
> you mentioned.
>
> The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
> formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
> a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
> and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>
> The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
> should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
> responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
> not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.


I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.

I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!

But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
yourself...

-Fred W
6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
conscience, not some foolish party line...)

 

<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
> The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
> nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
> business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>
> The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
> serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
> you mentioned.
>
> The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
> formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
> a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
> and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>
> The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
> should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
> responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
> not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.


I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.

I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!

But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
yourself...

-Fred W
6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
conscience, not some foolish party line...)

 

<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
> The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
> nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
> business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>
> The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
> serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
> you mentioned.
>
> The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
> formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
> a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
> and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>
> The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
> should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
> responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
> not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.


I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.

I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!

But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
yourself...

-Fred W
6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
conscience, not some foolish party line...)

 

<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
> The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
> nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
> business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>
> The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
> serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
> you mentioned.
>
> The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
> formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
> a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
> and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>
> The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
> should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
> responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
> not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.


I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.

I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!

But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
yourself...

-Fred W
6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
conscience, not some foolish party line...)

 

"we could get some killer turn-outs!"
That's what the democrats do... have killers and dead people vote...
sometimes more than once.

Fred W. wrote:

> <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
>
>>The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
>>nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
>>business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>>
>>The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
>>serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
>>you mentioned.
>>
>>The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
>>formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
>>a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
>>and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>>
>>The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
>>should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
>>responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
>>not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.
>
> I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
> our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
> the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
> the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
> commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
> half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
> day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
> security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!
>
> But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
> have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
> fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
> yourself...
>
> -Fred W
> 6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
> conscience, not some foolish party line...)
>
>

 

"we could get some killer turn-outs!"
That's what the democrats do... have killers and dead people vote...
sometimes more than once.

Fred W. wrote:

> <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
>
>>The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
>>nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
>>business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>>
>>The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
>>serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
>>you mentioned.
>>
>>The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
>>formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
>>a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
>>and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>>
>>The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
>>should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
>>responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
>>not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.
>
> I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
> our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
> the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
> the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
> commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
> half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
> day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
> security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!
>
> But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
> have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
> fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
> yourself...
>
> -Fred W
> 6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
> conscience, not some foolish party line...)
>
>

 

"we could get some killer turn-outs!"
That's what the democrats do... have killers and dead people vote...
sometimes more than once.

Fred W. wrote:

> <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
>
>>The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
>>nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
>>business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>>
>>The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
>>serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
>>you mentioned.
>>
>>The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
>>formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
>>a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
>>and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>>
>>The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
>>should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
>>responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
>>not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.
>
> I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
> our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
> the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
> the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
> commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
> half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
> day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
> security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!
>
> But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
> have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
> fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
> yourself...
>
> -Fred W
> 6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
> conscience, not some foolish party line...)
>
>

 

"we could get some killer turn-outs!"
That's what the democrats do... have killers and dead people vote...
sometimes more than once.

Fred W. wrote:

> <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> news:oqgoh09nmfq315v75bt0eg7n75opdt8g88@4ax.com...
>
>>The point is that we, all of us, have a responsibility to serve our
>>nation, to keep it alive and well. The military, fire, police,
>>business, teachers are all needed to provide for the nation's welfare.
>>
>>The military is a special case as it requires youth. Most of us can
>>serve in the military and then later, in one of the other roles that
>>you mentioned.
>>
>>The problem with a "professional military" is the division that is
>>formed between the military and the population at large. That is not
>>a good thing. The population is more willing to expend the military
>>and to think of them as "they" rather than "us."
>>
>>The draft, which is still in effect (though not active) here in the US
>>should remind us that serving in the military is not only a
>>responsibility, but is also a requirement. That the requirement is
>>not enforced today, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> I have to chime in and agree with Matt here.
>
> I personally feel that every citizen has an *obligation* to contribute to
> our country in one way or another. Sure, it can be done in many ways, but
> the largest fraction of our current population has made zero attempt at even
> the remotest inkling of a contribution. Instead they just glom on the
> commitment and sacrifices of the smaller fraction. Heck, we can't even get
> half of the shlubs in this country to show up and cast a ballot on election
> day! I'll bet if it was a pre-requisite for collecting welfare or social
> security benefits we could get some killer turn-outs!
>
> But I certainly do not agree that one has to have served in the military to
> have, and voice, an opinion on foreign affairs. Just contribute in some
> fashion. And the only one who knows if you have or not for sure is
> yourself...
>
> -Fred W
> 6 year Navy vet ('76 - 81) & registered republican (who votes his personal
> conscience, not some foolish party line...)
>
>

 

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:21 -0700, CRWLR wrote:

> As much as I fully support anybody's right to complain, I take them much
> more seriously if they have stood on the wall.

While your action was commendible, it gives you no more or less weight
compared to any other American. That's part of "Freedom". I see a lot
of people wrapping themselves and their messages in the flag who distain
real freedom. Oh, they're all for "Freedom" as long as it agrees with
they're values and opinions. But when another person's differ, the sparks
start to fly.

If more Americans actually believed in "Freedom", we wouldn't have such
large audiences for hate-mongers like Limbaugh, or Drudge, or O'Reilly, or
Coulter, and we wouldn't need organizations like the ACLU to defend the
Constitution.

I'll give you 3 good examples - "Scott Peterson". I don't think we'd find
too many people that wouldn't think of things that ought to be done to
him after hearing the testimony at his trial. But our "Freedoms" dictate
that he's entitled to a fair trial.

Next - "Enemy Combatants" I sure don't want any of these guys out there
plotting to kill more Americans,...would you? But that's not the point.
The point is that in spite of what you and I think, these people still
have rights. The ***** killed upwards of 6 million people and got a
public trial. The people the US is holding killed how many people? Even
if you count all thise killed in all --------- attacks and Afghanistan &
Iraq, it amounts to, what,... 4 thousand? I'm not trying to trivialize
their loss... It's just that 4K is a long way from 6M.

"Gay marriage". I'll start right out by saying I'm Catholic and my
religious beliefs hold against gay marriage. But I'm also an American,
and part of our "Freedoms" is that our Government is mandated by the
Constitution not to enforce any religious dogma. Marriage is above all
a religious institution forged between two humans. While my faith says
this should be limited to couples of the opposite ---, there is no reason
that another religion couldn't condone same --- marriages. (Off hand, I
can't think of any, but then that doesn't mean there aren't.) An
Amendment to the Constitution to ban same---- marriages would be the
Government enforcing Religious Dogma. So here we are... Do we support
everyone's "Freedoms", or do we act UnAmerican, say f*ck the Constitution,
and limit other people's "Freedoms"??

These are 3 examples of problems today that are dividing our Nation, not
because they're extreemes, but because we've become intollerant of
others views, opinions, and customs.


--

-bob-
_______________________________________
SuSE Linux Pro 9.1