Anonymous wrote:social security is fine , people pay in...if the spenders would stop stealing it. everybody knows the elderly need some system for medical care . Medicine is the U S most competative sector and a engine of wealth ...until Obamacare. What people want is 1)a strong military 2?social security (which they pay for) and 3) medicare or something like it and 4)low taxes. looks like the Ox that will get gored is the Federal work force...slash everything that isnt military/ss or medicare. then tweak ss (later retirement) and discipline medicare fraud.Anonymous wrote:But they actually want what liberals provide. Go ahead conservatives. Get rid of social security, Medicare, and repeal abortion. See how many votes you get.Anonymous wrote:this is why only 20% of americans identify themselves as liberal. nobody wants to be associated with this crap.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:social security is fine , people pay in...if the spenders would stop stealing it. everybody knows the elderly need some system for medical care . Medicine is the U S most competative sector and a engine of wealth ...until Obamacare. What people want is 1)a strong military 2?social security (which they pay for) and 3) medicare or something like it and 4)low taxes. looks like the Ox that will get gored is the Federal work force...slash everything that isnt military/ss or medicare. then tweak ss (later retirement) and discipline medicare fraud.Anonymous wrote:But they actually want what liberals provide. Go ahead conservatives. Get rid of social security, Medicare, and repeal abortion. See how many votes you get.Anonymous wrote:this is why only 20% of americans identify themselves as liberal. nobody wants to be associated with this crap.
Socialist.
Anonymous wrote:social security is fine , people pay in...if the spenders would stop stealing it. everybody knows the elderly need some system for medical care . Medicine is the U S most competative sector and a engine of wealth ...until Obamacare. What people want is 1)a strong military 2?social security (which they pay for) and 3) medicare or something like it and 4)low taxes. looks like the Ox that will get gored is the Federal work force...slash everything that isnt military/ss or medicare. then tweak ss (later retirement) and discipline medicare fraud.Anonymous wrote:But they actually want what liberals provide. Go ahead conservatives. Get rid of social security, Medicare, and repeal abortion. See how many votes you get.Anonymous wrote:this is why only 20% of americans identify themselves as liberal. nobody wants to be associated with this crap.
social security is fine , people pay in...if the spenders would stop stealing it. everybody knows the elderly need some system for medical care . Medicine is the U S most competative sector and a engine of wealth ...until Obamacare. What people want is 1)a strong military 2?social security (which they pay for) and 3) medicare or something like it and 4)low taxes. looks like the Ox that will get gored is the Federal work force...slash everything that isnt military/ss or medicare. then tweak ss (later retirement) and discipline medicare fraud.Anonymous wrote:But they actually want what liberals provide. Go ahead conservatives. Get rid of social security, Medicare, and repeal abortion. See how many votes you get.Anonymous wrote:this is why only 20% of americans identify themselves as liberal. nobody wants to be associated with this crap.
Anonymous wrote:I would bet that quietly many people agree that the word "hero" is overused. But they saw what happened to that poor guy who said it. Why aren't teachers called "heroes"? They save kids from poverty, lives of crime, etc. Other professions should too be called "heroes". Military folks who don't serve in the line of combat are basically doing office jobs like everyone else. Why are they "heroes"?
Anonymous wrote:I would bet that quietly many people agree that the word "hero" is overused. But they saw what happened to that poor guy who said it. Why aren't teachers called "heroes"? They save kids from poverty, lives of crime, etc. Other professions should too be called "heroes". Military folks who don't serve in the line of combat are basically doing office jobs like everyone else. Why are they "heroes"?
Anonymous wrote:Admitted liberal here with the utmost respect for the military (long family history of military service). I find it absurd that every dead soldier is called a hero. Not all of them are heroes. Some are just dead. Hero means someone who has taken heroic action - performed an act of heroism - not just someone who happened to be riding in a supply truck when it exploded. I don't believe that everyone who joins the military does so out of a burning desire to throw themselves in harm's way protecting our way of life. I think a lot of them do it for the money - or because they have no other options. (I'm thinking across the spectrum from doctors who signed on before med school in order to afford their education to poor high school grads with no economic prospects in a financially distressed community.)
Many of the people dying were really just doing their jobs, but not in a spectacularly heroic fashion. I completely agree that it diminished the meaning of "hero" to have it applied to any person who dons a military uniform. Honorable? Sure. Courageous? Sure. Heroic? Not automatically. That should require something more, beyond having had the misfortune to die.
I really do respect the military but I do agree that "hero" is not the appropriate term to apply unless there was true heroism involved - above and beyond the call of duty.
But they actually want what liberals provide. Go ahead conservatives. Get rid of social security, Medicare, and repeal abortion. See how many votes you get.Anonymous wrote:this is why only 20% of americans identify themselves as liberal. nobody wants to be associated with this crap.
Anonymous
this is why only 20% of americans identify themselves as liberal. nobody wants to be associated with this crap.
Anonymous wrote:OP you are absurd and as usual, taking someone's statements out of context.
The pundit was not dissing the actual soldiers. He was referring to the fact that we tend to try to lionize the WAR by cloaking it in hero language. Dressing up/making somehow more acceptable this apalling loss of life in words that try to make it seem like a worthy, noble sacrifice.
All the super liberals I know hate the war, not the soldiers. We blame the politicans, not the soldiers. We support the troops, not the conflict.