You can't put terrorism on "fronts". One of the biggest mistakes people make is to think "terrorism" is some sort of standing army where all it's members name's are in a guest book and wear uniforms and are subject to never leave a certain area. Really though, how many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq? I bet I can tell you that one: 0. If we are really after spreading freedom and ending terrorism, then shouldn't we be in Korea, Iran and Syria? Iraq is small fish compared to what all of those nations are/were doing. All Iraq is, is a central operation point in the middle east to project out power to other middle eastern countries.
Iraq was the largest terrorist supporting country that wasn't too large (at least that's what we thought) to invade. We're there fighting terrorism. It can't be beaten 100%, but you can cut out a pretty sizable chunk. The point of the war isn't the terrorists nationality, it's their ideology. The people that attacked us on 9/11 were Islamofascists, and Iraq was supporting Islamofascists. The link was enough justification, no more was needed. We would also have gone after Syria and Iran, but our military was becoming over-extended on the Afghan and Iraqi fronts, and so we decided to see if we can't finish those up first.
Oh please. With corporations like Haliburton and Enron can you seriously say that big corporations have the little person's best interests in mind? They swindle their investor's money, set up their own non-bid contracts, screw people over, etc etc etc. The problem with the rich ruling us is simple: They only care about getting more wealthy and that comes before helping people. Their ties and relationships with big business MAKE them consult their monetary clients and interests before the common man and before they make any decision. Plus, they are in their own little rich bubble. They do not grasp the kind of problems most Americans struggle with. How can they possibly represent us when they are totally opposite of us?
Of course big corporations don't have our interests in mine. However, it's a symbiotic relationship and they end up looking out for the interests of the public through
the invisible hand. They're wealth comes from the people, so they have a symbiotic relationship with the public, and only stupid corporations try to over-tax the public or try to swindle their investors; they will fall, even if they have to be taken down by the government (there are some corps.
more immoral then others, and they are taken care of).
Only when its used against freedom....hmmm....see this is where the lines get very blurry and the areas get Grey. Who's freedom? What freedoms? Perhaps all of the insurgence in iraq right now fighting our troops see themselves as fighting for their kind of freedom? Can you blame them? You would fight against people who invade your own region of the world too if it came to it. Either way, you seem to support terrorism and our own support of it and its groups as long as it's not directed towards us, and someone else.
For the
most part, the world is black and white; freedom is allowing the individual a large amount of personal mobility; that's freedom. The insurgents in Iraq may see themselves fighting for freedom, but it is not
real freedom. Can we blame them? No. I understand, I sympathize. But that doesn't make it right. And yes, I would fight people who invaded my region, but that's
only because I support my country's ideology. If this country were a dictatorship of any sort, blow it hell.
Someone can work their heart out and still be in poverty for the rest of their lives. Believe it or not, classism and racism are still pretty embedded in our culture and society. Plus, people that are born into poverty usually are born into it so bad that they hardly know where to even begin. The social barriers are still alive and well today that keep people poor. You seem to have the old notion of "Everyone who pulls themselves up by their boot straps will make it in America!" is faulty. Do you think people LIKE being poor? They do what they can to get ahead, but often times they are too lost to know how to do it.
Yes, people often become lost because of their poverty; they don't seem to know what to do. But that isn't an excuse. My mom was in that state of poverty, her parents were hippies, and she lived most of her childhood and teenage years in the slums of Utica (NY). But she managed to do it; now she has a very good job in a company, and is doing all right as far as her business life goes. Financially, she's still stuck because of her choices in her late teens, but that's mostly because my Dad doesn't have a job (physical disability.) The government should give
some handouts to
some of these people, if they have a really serious problem, but only a little bit, just enough to help them get back on track.
Whereabouts in Upstate NY? Thats where I live. Well, I live around Albany. I promise you I'm not an idiot.
An hour or two north of Syracuse. And I trust your not an idiot; I don't judge anyone's personality or intelligence by their political beliefs; I hope you don't either.
The government is there to protect yuor rights, of course. BUT, they are also there to help their citizenry when they need it, that is why we have various social programs in place to help people when they need it. A person that is physically unable to work NEEDS monetary help, since they cannot provide for themselves, for example.
When they need it; that's the fundamental statement. For the most part, people are completely able to help themselves. Those that cannot work do, of course, need some monetary help, but most people in America who cannot work actually can, and aren't looking in the right spots. My dad is physically disabled, but if he
really tried, he could get at least
some sort of job.
But, I can predict you hate welfare with every fiber of your being, if my intuition is correct.
Close. I accept that you
need some welfare state elements, but for the most part, I think we need much less of it then the average american.
Woah....you want them to REPEAL child labor laws!? Those laws are in place to protect young children from being abused by their employers. If they were repealed all sorts of worker abuse would take place...
Child labor laws prevent kids under 14 or 15 from getting a job; this I do not support. As long as kids are given the same working rights and protections as an adult, I don't see any problem with employing a ten year old. As long as the grades are taken into account, it should be fine.
