I saw Miami Vice and Pirates of the
Primarily, I like war movies. Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, Brave Heart, Gladiator (it’s kind of a war movie), and The Patriot are some of my favorites. My reflection made me wish there was a good war movie in the theaters that I could see. We are in a war after all – some say World War III or IV. I wondered about the War on Terrorism. I can’t even think of five non-documentary movies whose subject is the War on Terrorism. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Black Hawk Down (kind of)
(not out yet) World Trade Center
The point is there have been almost no movies made on this generations
When I thought about this, it reminded me of Casa Blanca. When I first saw the movie (just last year) I was surprised to see that it was released in 1942. I have been used to
Wings Over the Pacific (1943)
Wings for the Eagle (1942)
Winged Victory (1944)
Wing and a Prayer (1944)
Prelude to War (1943)
We've Never Been Licked (1943)
Went the Day Well? (1942)
We Dive at Dawn (1943)
Waterloo Bridge (1940)
Watch on the Rhine (1943)
War Dogs (1942)
Wake Island (1942)
Victory Through Air Power (1943)
Uncertain Glory (1944)
U-Boat Prisoner (1944)
Tunisian Victory (1944)
Too Young to Know (1945)
Tonight We Raid Calais (1943)
To the Shores of Tripoli (1942)
To Be or Not to Be (1942)
Till We Meet Again (1944)
This Man's Navy (1945)
This Land Is Mine (1943)
This Is the Army (1943)
This Above All (1942)
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944)
They Raid by Night (1942)
They Dare Not Love (1941)
The Wife Takes a Flyer (1942)
The White Cliffs of Dover (1944)
The Way to the Stars (1945)
The Way Ahead (1944)
The War Against Mrs. Hadley (1942)
The True Glory (1945)
The Tanks Are Coming (1941)
The Spy in Black (1939)
The Sullivans (1944)
The Strange Death of Adolf Hitler (1943)
The Story of Dr. Wassell (1944)
The Seventh Cross (1944)
The Rats of Tobruk (1944)
The Purple Heart (1944)
The Pied Piper (1942)
The North Star (1943)
The Navy Comes Through (1942)
The Moon Is Down (1943)
The Master Race (1944)
The Man I Married (1940)
The Lion Has Wings (1939)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
Immortal Sergeant (1943)
The Hitler Gang (1944)
The Foreman Went to France (1942)
The Fighting Seabees (1944)
The Fighting Lady (1944)
The Eve of St. Mark (1944)
The Day Will Dawn (1942)
The Cross of Lorraine (1943)
Commandos Strike at Dawn (1942)
The Clock (1945)
The Big Blockade (1940 )
Texas to Bataan (1942)
Target Tokyo (1945)
Target Snafu (1944)
Target for Tonight (1941)
Swing Shift Maisie (1943)
The First of the Few (1942)
Song of Russia (1944)
Somewhere I'll Find You (1942)
So Proudly We Hail! (1943)
So Ends Our Night (1941)
Since You Went Away (1944)
Ships with Wings (1942)
See Here, Private Hargrove (1944)
Secret Mission (1942)
Secret Agent of Japan (1942)
San Demetrio London (1943)
Salute to the Marines (1943)
Reunion in France (1942)
Prisoner of Japan (1942)
Prelude to War (1943)
'Pimpernel' Smith (1941)
Pilot #5 (1943)
Pastor Hall (1940)
Paris Underground (1945)
Paris Calling (1941)
Paris After Dark (1943)
Our Russian Front (1942)
Roma, città aperta (1945)
One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942)
Objective, Burma! (1945)
Night Train to Munich (1940)
Night Plane from Chungking (1943)
Mrs. Miniver (1942)
Mr. Winkle Goes to War (1944)
Millions Like Us (1943)
Marine Raiders (1944)
Manila Calling (1942 )
Lady from Chungking (1942)
Ladies Courageous (1944)
Keep Your Powder Dry (1945)
International Squadron (1941)
In Which We Serve (1942)
Identity Unknown (1945)
I Wanted Wings (1941)
2,000 Women (1944)
Hotel Berlin (1945)
Hitler's Madman (1943)
Hitler's Children (1943)
Hitler--Dead or Alive (1942)
Hitler - Beast of Berlin (1939)
Here Is Germany (1945)
Hangmen Also Die (1943)
Guadalcanal Diary (1943)
Great Day (1945)
God Is My Co-Pilot (1945)
Pride of the Marines (1945)
Foreign Correspondent (1940)
Flying Tigers (1942)
Flight Command (1940)
Five Graves to Cairo (1943)
First Comes Courage (1943)
Escape to Glory (1940)
Enemy of Women (1944)
Eagle Squadron (1942)
Dragon Seed (1944)
Dive Bomber (1941)
Destination Tokyo (1943)
Desperate Journey (1942)
Desert Victory (1943)
December 7th (1943)
Days of Glory (1944)
Dangerous Moonlight (1941)
Crash Dive (1943)
Cottage to Let (1941)
Corvette K-225 (1943)
Commandos Strike at Dawn (1942)
Coastal Command (1942)
China's Little Devils (1945)
China Sky (1945)
China Girl (1942)
Channel Incident (1940)
Captains of the Clouds (1942)
Burma Victory (1945)
Burma Convoy (1941)
Bombs Over Burma (1943)
Blood on the Sun (1945)
Black Dragons (1942)
Betrayal from the East (1945)
Background to Danger (1943)
Back to Bataan (1945)
Atlantic Convoy (1942)
Assignment in Brittany (1943)
The North Star (1943)
Appointment in Berlin (1943)
Beyond the Line of Duty (1942)
Aerial Gunner (1943)
Sabotage Agent (1943)
Address Unknown (1944)
Action in the North Atlantic (1943)
Action in Arabia (1944)
A Yank in Libya (1942)
Wing and a Prayer (1944 )
A Walk in the Sun (1945)
Paramount Victory Short No. T2-1: A Letter from Bataan (1942 )
for Adano (1945) Bell
49th Parallel (1941)
This list says it all. My count is 183 WWII movies while the war was still being waged. Admittedly, some of these movies are probably documentaries or only loosely tied to WWII, but the fact is that the media promoted awareness by focusing on the major world event of the time, a world war.
Many of you are afraid of the current conflict between
and Hezbollah. A large number of you believe that it could turn into a large scale mid-east conflict with the Israel UScaught in the middle in . As scary as this may seem to you, it is very scary to Muslims. We do not want to fight the Iraq US, , and whoever else decides to join the fight. Frankly, I know we would lose. Even if we were able to drive out you infidels, it would come at a high cost. Millions would die, and billions of dollars would be needed to rebuild. Everyone knows that, but only I know the solution. Israel
The War on Terrorism stems from deep misunderstanding on the infidel side. What is the misunderstanding centered on? Women and sex. I knew that would increase your heathen attention span.
The West prides itself in allowing its women to behave in any way they see fit and the results have been disastrous. Rampant abortion, 30% of your children are born out of wedlock, half of your marriages end in divorce, and worst of all, the advent of feminists. These are just byproducts of Western “freedom”.
The root of the problem is the idea that women can make their own decisions. Most women subliminally acknowledge that they like men to make the decisions for them. Even American women admit this. It is human nature. It is the way Allah (and Mohammed is his prophet) intended it.
Enough talk. I know you infidels have unusually short attention spans. The following are juxtapositions between the Islamic world and the West.
These two are proof women can’t even eat without the guidance of a man. Women in the West, because of liberal ideas, value themselves less than Muslim women do. This has helped lead to obesity in the land of the infidels.
These are the Muslim equivalents. The one on the left is called the "Muslim Madonna" and the one on the right is Osama bin Laden's niece. No obesity here.
These pictures were taken during the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon. These women look good because they know their place and are therefore good natured.
These are pictures from a pro-abortion rally in the US. Not only are your women decisively uglier, but judging by the material written on their posters, they lack any sense of class, tact, and intelligence.
Here are a couple pictures of women taking care of the homes during the day in America. Oh that’s right, American women have jobs and ignore their homes.
Americans ignore their homes, but not good holy Muslims. They still care about their families because they have not been infiltrated by the heathen ideas...yet. On the left, the man is so generous, he decided to help his female companion (we call them wives, but you heathens don't even bother getting married anymore).
, I really do. So the following picture is meant as a warning of what is coming your way if you do not repent from your heathen ways. America
Don’t just assume this won’t happen to your country. Why do you think
Europehas zero growth? Their women are so repulsive, that the men can not find it in themselves to impregnate them. I caution you American, you are just 20 years away from a similar situation.
I know what you infidels are thinking: "so where is the picture of a cleanly shaven Muslim woman?" You dirty infidels i ought to kill you. Just kidding, I love America, but Muslim women will not be exploited for their sexuality. Just trust me on this one, they take care of themselves. They do it because they still respect themseleves (unlike those French whores). Which brings me back to my original point.
These ideas are dangerous and contrary to Islam. Rightly or wrongly, many of my people believe that they threaten our way of life. Jihad, although I believe is misguided, tries its best push back the influence of the West so that we may retain our traditions and avoid the ugly women syndrome (UWS). So for the love of Allah (and Mohammed is his prophet) let us be.
When conservatives oppose illegal immigration, welfare, and English as the official language of the
The point is, Republicans HATE being called bigots, racists, and xenophobes, so why would they do the same to those that oppose the prolonged Israeli action against Hezbollah? It would be just as easy to say that those who support
As Americans, we can not get drawn into these petty debates over who is racist and who isn’t. If someone opposes
Conservatives know that playing the race card is not an argument, but a cheap political trick to hush up the opposition. Not to mention, there are good arguments (not so much a good argument, but it reveals the mindset of those in the current situationon) why Israel should not continue their current action.
Some are already seeing through the smokescreen.
As you may have noticed, the right isn’t the only side throwing around the term “anti-Semitic”.
Democrat leader Howard Dean called the Iraqi prime minister an "anti-Semite" during an address before party loyalists on Wednesday, drawing a swift rebuke from Republicans. The Democratic National Committee chairman also called Republican Senate candidate Katherine Harris a "crook" and compared her to Stalin.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who addressed a joint session of Congress Wednesday, came under fire from Democrats for recent comments on the conflict in
Lebanonbetween and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Al-Maliki hasn't condemned Hezbollah, but he criticized the "Israeli aggression." Israel
Howard Dean is unbelievable. I can only imagine what Maliki said to President Bush regarding the Democratic response to his visit to
“Don’t they get that I am walking a tightrope in
It must be frustrating for him to have to be verbally and politically attacked by politicians from a country that he is trying to help (by stabilizing
Lance Bass, a singer in the boy band *NSync, has revealed that he is gay and in a relationship with a former star of a U.S. reality television show, People magazine said on Wednesday.One down, four to go. Stumble It!
Bass, 27, said he had kept his homosexuality a secret because he did not want to hurt *NSync's popularity and cripple the careers of his bandmates.
"The thing is, I'm not ashamed -- that's the one thing I want to say," Bass told People. "I don't think it's wrong, I'm not devastated going through this. I'm more liberated and happy than I've been my whole life."
Bass said he has a "very stable" relationship with actor Reichen Lehmkuhl, 32, who appeared on the reality TV show "Amazing Race."
As compelling, logical, and well thought-out as the “stupid Republican” argument may seem, I have a feeling Democrats wouldn’t be willing to put their money where their mouth is.
If Republicans are dumb (and Democrats are smart as implied by that statement) why not have a voting test? I know some people say it is unfair and unconstitutional, but who cares about the constitution? Constitution smonstitution.
Being a problem solver by nature (as opposed to a complainer), I decided to devise my own voting test. First I thought, one question test should solve this problem?
Can you read this? If you can, continue voting. If you can’t, you are in one of two categories, choose the option best for you.
- Immigration will be here to pick you up shortly
- Sorry, public schools do not offer refunds
Thank you for your time.
It is a great idea, but then I thought, what about all the idiots that are smart enough to read, but too stupid to make decisions like whom should be the next president? My mind wandered through some basic questions we could ask:
Who was our first president?
What country did the
win its independence from? US
How many states are there?
Questions like these are elementary, but surprisingly some Americans don’t know the answers - too many in fact. However, the logistics of the test became an issue. When would voters take this test? How do we stop people from cheating? What about time? People don’t have all day to take a dumb test.
Then it hit me. Behold, the perfect test to weed out dumb voters.Stumble It!
NOBEL peace laureate Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday,lashing out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren.
Campaigning on the rights of young people at the Earth Dialogues forum, being held in Brisbane, Ms Williams spoke passionately about the deaths of innocent children during wartime, particularly in the
Middle East, and lambasted Mr Bush.
"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64.
"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the
clapped and cheered. Brisbane City Hall
I hate to point out the obvious, but does she not realize that more children were killed under Saddam and that
I was browsing Myspace profiles, minding my own business, when I had an epiphany. One of the profiles I stumbled upon said this under the “heroes” section (the part of the site where a person lists their heroes):
Originals, intellectuals, musicians, writers, Chuck Klosterman, Bono (mwuahahaha), other open-minded and loving people not afraid to be themselves
This is a typical heroes list for young liberals. Liberal logic dictates that the virtue of being “open-minded” trumps just about everything else. To a liberal, being open-minded is synonymous with being liberal. In other words, if you aren't liberal, you are not open-minded.
Ironically, this particular list of "heroes" does not reveal an open-minded person at all. It sounds much more like a list written by an elitist rather than a list of someone that loves diversity. Diversity of liberals is an odd thing though. They tend to focus on race and origin rather than mindset or philosophy when speaking of “diversity”. I digress…
Think about it this way, someone that is “open-minded” would not limit themselves to others that were “open-minded”. A true open-minded person can be anyone’s friend. Conservative, liberal, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, Democrat, Republican, religious, non-religious - it wouldn't matter. Someone that says they want "open-minded" friends may as well say they want like-minded friends. There is nothing wrong with that, but it certainly is not open-minded.
This is a relief for people that believe in capitalism. Liberals like to claim that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want and not be bothered by the state. I guess that doesn't apply to Wal-Mart. After all, to liberals, Wal-Mart workers are exploited, while prostitutes and strippers are just people that work hard and are willing to put it all on the line to make a living.
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz decided that the Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law "imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart."
Motz cited the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which he said pre-empts "any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.""My finding that the act is pre-empted is in accordance with long established Supreme Court law that state laws which impose health or welfare mandates on employers are invalid under ERISA," Motz wrote in his 32-page opinion.
Today, the President vetoed a bill that would have expanded the federal funding of stem cell research. It is the first time the President used his veto power in his six years in office. The veto broke the hearts of many who seem to believe that the only way to fund scientific research is through the federal government. Some are so hysterical, that they claim the president is outlawing stem cell research. This is not true.
If the politicians, celebrities, and liberals spent as much time at fund raisers for stem cell research as they did complaining about the President’s stance, they would have all the money they needed. In fact, let’s says that 60% of Americans favor stem cell research (as some have claimed during this debate). Let’s say half of those people, for some reason or another, decide they don’t want to give money privately to support the research. That leaves 30% of
This issue is a microcosm of American politics. The fact is that if the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would oppose the federal funding of stem cell research. They wrote the constitution with the intent of forming minimalist government. Stem cell research is the perfect example of why they wanted this. There are tens of millions of Americans that believe this type of research is morally wrong. Yet the left (who claim to be against shoving moral values on others) insist that these people must pay taxes that fund stem cell research, regardless of their beliefs. Talk about making a mockery of the constitution (as was claimed in the flag burning amendment debate).
So if you want stem cell research funded, join a fund raising group and go door to door, make phone calls, whatever gets the job done. Don’t go to your congressman and expect him to coerce your neighbors to do your dirty work through taxes.
*Regarding race, if you run a restaurant (say Chinese or Mexican), you would be making a good decision to hire Chinese or Mexicans. This type of “discrimination” would not only promote the quality and authenticity of the food, but it would also help build a positive ambiance.
My point is this: I would much rather be turned away from my job for my race or gender as opposed to my physical appearance. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, check out the people that would at, Abercrombie and other similar stores. In other words, would you rather be called fat/ugly or (fill in your race and gender here).Stumble It!
I am currently watching “Global Warming: What You Need To Know”, hosted by Tom Brokaw on the Discovery Channel. Since I am not a true believer in global warming, most of it is obnoxious nonsense. Talk of losing half of the worlds species, lots of rain, not enough rain, blah blah blah. I would like quote my favorite liberal mantra at this point: the world isn’t black and white, it is often shades of gray. For arguments sake, lets say global warming is happening, and that humans are causing it.
Short list of “grays”:
*If you want to lower carbon emissions, forget hybrids, nuclear power is the way to go. Coal plants emit far more CO2 each year than vehicles. In fact, “40% of
*Are you scared of global warming? Maybe you should be, maybe not, but don’t look at the
*One of the main arguments against global warming initiatives is that it will hurt the economy. The greenest of the green try to deny this (as some did in Brokaw’s documentary). If fighting global warming doesn’t hurt the economy, then why not regulate
I believe a lot of this environmental hysteria has more to do with socialism and a disdain for the West rather than a true belief in wanting to help the environment. You can see it every time you see an “environmentalist” making their point by pointing to “greedy” corporations.
P.S. I still don’t believe humans are causing global warming.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist activities in the United States, said thousands of hate group members are now in the armed forces, especially in the Army, increasing the threat of domestic terrorism."First off, let me say that I think Nazi’s infiltrating the US military is a bad thing. That being said, it does seems that this story is getting a little more coverage than a similar story about gangsters infiltrating the military .
There is mounting evidence that military recruiters and commanders, under intense pressure to meet manpower goals with the country at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, have relaxed standards designed to prohibit racist extremists from serving in the armed forces," the center's Chief Executive Richard Cohen told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a letter.
Kerry: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not—There you have it. Bush and his neo-con/Nazi ilk are conducting a war of terrorism, not a war on terrorism. What concerns me even more is the last part of what Kerry said.
Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that.
Iraqis should be doing that.
I had to do a double take when I read this. Not only is George Bush terrorizing the world, but now he isn't letting Iraqi's terrorize their own people. The arrogance of Bush astounds me. He thinks he can go anywhere he wants and force his morals on others. WELL GEORGE, WHAT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO LIVE EXACTLY LIKE YOU!!! People like George see the world in black and white, and frankly, people like that are always wrong about everything.
We have done the world wrong America. Now we have the blood of 200 Indians on our hands. I wish we were a true democracy lie The Netherlands so we could smoke pot.
None of this should come as a surprise. After all, leader of the cause, Cindy Sheehan, called this one a while ago when she labeled Bush (rightfully so) the biggest terrorist in the world. She also knows this country is on the brink of hopelessness and expressed her views on a recent trip to
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an editorial making the case for a guest worker program. The article talks about the free movement of labor,
The article made some good points, but all of these particular points are unsatisfactory, and here is why.
The idea that the free movement of labor should exist is very idealistic. No country in the world allows it, and it would be foolish to do so. If every laborer that wanted to migrate to
The WSJ also says this:
Our own view is that a philosophy of "free markets and free people" includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right.
I do not know how the WSJ could actually believe this. This would make sense in the context of a single country, but that is not the topic at hand. We are talking about millions of people moving from one country to another. If they want a world without borders, they have a long way to go.
The WSJ also mentions that the demand for labor is there, and
I believe that immigrants come here because they can, not because of demand. In other words,
The WSJ also plays the humanity card. The idea, it seems, is that we should let in poor people because it is morally right. If this was about morals, then we should be letting in far less people from
Asia is the most populated continent by far and had a disproportionately small immigration rate to the
More from the WSJ:
The real claims that illegals make on public services are education, which can't be withheld because of a 1982 Supreme Court ruling (Plyer v. Doe), and health care, especially emergency rooms. Since denying urgent medical treatment is immoral, the answer again is to legalize cross-border labor flows and remove government obstacles to affordable health insurance. As for education, even illegals pay for public schools through the indirect property taxes they pay in rent. Overall, immigrants contribute far more to our economy than they extract in public benefits.
Essentially, immigration would be far less burdensome if we lived in a different world.
According to their one line argument regarding education, there should be no more burden on the education system in
As usual, I have all the answers. If the
Border security should be our main objective at this time. The idea that we have been fighting a war on drugs for 25 years and our borders still are not secure is unbelievable. The fact that we have been fighting a war on terror under the same circumstances is an outrage. Build a fence on both borders and monitor them 24/7 with the National Guard and high-tech surveillance. It keeps terrorists, the unwanted, and drugs out.
We cannot just let people in and hope they can do the jobs that we need. We have to let in people with specific skills we are looking for. This will probably mean letting in less people who are destined for poverty and letting in more doctors, scientists, etc. This makes some people mad. They cite the line, “give me your tired, poor and huddled masses”…as if that was in the constitution and we were bound by it. It is a poem, get over it.
The financial burden of immigration will cease to exist if we let in the right people. They will either be extremely hard working, or high educated. Either case will help them avoid poverty and welfare check lines.
For many people, the greatest fear of immigration is assimilation. Many believe that the
Problem solved.Stumble It!
A couple weeks back, I was watching “The Situation with Tucker Carlson”, and the topic was the World Cup. His guest was Max Kellerman, a daily guest that plays devil’s advocate for various issues. On this particular issue, Max was defending the fact that the rest of the world loves soccer, and thinks the
It sounds over the top, and probably is, but it is true. Americans have so much more money, and as a result, they have more entertainment options.
KELLERMAN: Tucker, the rest of the world wants Americans to like soccer not because they‘re against this country but because they actually believe it‘s entertaining and the reason they believe it‘s entertaining because in most of the rest of the world there‘s very, very little competition for the entertainment dollar, they don‘t have the NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball in the rest of the world and so they actually think this stuff is entertaining.
CARLSON: You‘re totally right. These are countries that have the paint drying network. There‘s not a lot else going on. The problem I have with soccer. Look, there are people who play soccer and enjoy it, apparently even in this country. But the point is the argument for soccer is, the, hey, all the other kids are doing it argument. If I jump off a bridge would you follow me?
KELLERMAN: Tucker, we have basketball. Let me just quickly explain. Basketball is to soccer as human beings are to chimpanzees or the monkeys from which we descended. From whom we descended.
The thing is soccer is played on a 100-yard field. So you can only play it outdoors and it‘s a lot of running around, very little scoring. Basketball, they said who needs to be running up and down? We‘ll shorten the field, we‘ll take away the goalie so people can score. You know these opposable thumbs that separate us from most of the animal kingdom? Instead of saying we‘re not allowed to use them, we‘re saying you have to use them.
In every way, they have evolved soccer into something that‘s actually entertaining, it‘s the NBA, it‘s basketball and the finals are going on right now. Incidentally, the only reason there‘s a spike in soccer popularity right now is that every four years there‘s the World Cup. I think it‘s four years. Eight years, two years, I don‘t know. Every once in a while the World Cup comes around, everybody gets all excited, when that‘s over it will thankfully go away and we don‘t go to deal with it anymore.
There is another factor though. The reason soccer is so popular everywhere in the world is because anyone can play it. And you need is a round ball (not even a soccer ball really) and you can play. Popular sports in
For instance, with American football, you actually need a football. You can’t substitute it for a volleyball or basketball. You also need to play on grass. Of course soccer is much better on grass too, but I would venture to say more people play soccer on a non-grass surface when compared with football. And that’s just playing for fun.
If you factor in school and professional teams, sports like baseball, football, and hockey are much harder to maintain because of all of the equipment involved. Hockey has the biggest disadvantage because not only does it need loads of equipment, but it needs either cooperative weather or an artificial ice rink.
The point is, people will say
Denouncing the merger of politics and moral values has become a popular rhetorical tool in
Most people would agree that murder is morally wrong, but it is also a religious belief (see the Ten Commandments). On the other hand, belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is a religious belief. The difference can be subtle at times, but it is usually pretty clear. When an idea transcends multiple religions (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) it is probably safe to say it is not a religious belief, rather, it is a moral that many people from many backgrounds agree with.
Many fail to realize that at its core, the moral values argument is a fallacy. Besides the few citizens that vote based on their racial identity, most voters in this country choose candidates and political parties based on ideas. Whether it be the environment, economics, foreign policy, welfare, gun rights, or abortion, parties and voters choose sides based on their sense of right and wrong. In other words, they vote based on their moral values.
Despite both major political parties aggressively trying to instate their moral values, only one party is usually associated with it. It is often said that Republicans are leading a crusade to push their moral values on
Same-sex marriage is a good example of this one-sidedness. Keeping the laws the way they have been since the founding of the country is not shoving morals down others throats. If anything, changing laws that have been in place from the beginning of time would fit that category. Yet Democrats insist that it is the other way around. Ironically, the Democratic Party deserves most of the blame when it comes to morals in politics.
While Democrats claim to be against forcing values on others, they are responsible for creating the most invasive aspect of the government today – the welfare state. Currently, our national budget is around $2.6 trillion. The three biggest injections of moral values into our government ($1 trillion worth) are Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
Each one of these programs forces a value onto the citizens of this country that many do not agree with. Certain citizens may prefer to buy a TV, a car, or a house, but the government coerces taxpayers to pay for the healthcare and retirement of someone who is unwilling to pay for it themselves. When you see someone pay for their groceries with food stamps and buy $50 worth of lottery tickets with their own money, you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Regardless of whether one views welfare as productive or moral, there are other practical problems. These problems range from a creation of a sense of entitlement among welfare receivers, its coercive nature, the fact that it leads to apathy, and its wasteful nature, which hurts the overall economy. Coercion, however, is the key. Some people don’t want anything to do with welfare, so why make them be a part of it?
Unlike the abstract fears of global warming, evil corporations, NSA wiretaps, Janet Jackson’s breasts, and goblins, the fear of economic coercion (welfare) is real. The affects are not somewhere in the future that may or may not affect us; they are tangible and have been affecting us for 40 years. It is a moral value imposed on taxpayers by the government and those who claim to be against moral coercion. The fact that certain individuals lack the intellectual ability to understand this is disturbing, but that isn’t the problem. The argument is outright dishonest, and they know it.Stumble It!
When I was surfing the internet a while back, I found a site that has a Federal budget simulation. It lets you adjust spending and taxes and tells you how big your deficit would be at the end of the year. It is interesting to see how much our government spends on various projects. Anyways, here is my budget if I had control of federal spending. My main principle is that if a state can do it and it doesn’t involve national security, let them do it.
Military spending will not change in my world, not because I think we NEED a large peace time military, but because we can. However, in my world, they wouldn’t just be sitting around playing cards all day, they would help secure the borders and ports.
I would keep everything here pretty much the same except for eliminating the federal funding of humanitarian aid. Americans give enough on their own; we don’t need the feds involved. Besides, many international problems have been made worse by “humanitarian aid” being stolen and used to prop up dictators.
My world deregulates space, which will end the near monopoly currently held by the
States can control their own energy, but just in case, there is still $640 million dollars to throw around if we need it.
This category is another example the feds grossly overstepping their territory. Things like natural resources, pollution control, and land management should be left up to the states.
For instance, Californians cares a lot more about protecting the environment than Texans. So rather than making them follow the same environmental laws, allow them to write their own.
I believe social welfare is not defendable, but corporate welfare is worse.
The postal service can be privatized and other spending on “advancing commerce” is not needed.
Every state can construct and maintain their roads. Why federalize any of this? Federalizing transportation spending leads to cases of wasteful spending like the “bridge to nowhere”. There is still $21 billion worth of spending to spread around - just in case.
Education is run locally, that’s one of the things that makes
No federal unemployment compensation cuts $39 billion, cutting the federal funding of “training and employment” saves and additional $7 billion. The only programs that remain funded are “labor law, statistics, and other administration”.
Cut everything except Indian health, disease control, public health, bioterrorism (presumably defending against it), and food safety.
All welfare should be left up to the states. Some states love welfare, others don’t. The states that like lots of welfare should not be able to force their values on other states.
Since my world has much less government, we can assume there will be a lot less federal workers, therefore, less retirement by federal employees.
Everything pretty much stays the same in this section except that Border security gets doubled in my world. Increasing overall spending by $10.45 billion
This section represents spending by the legislative and executive offices, as well as the IRS and other random government crap. Since the federal government is cut by more than half in my world, I’m sure the legislature and executive branches could use a few cuts.
Also, since the IRS doesn’t exist in my world, the government could save an additional $7 billion dollars.
Can you believe we pay $211 billion on interest on our national debt each year?
I’m not even sure what this is, so I didn’t change it.
I know it’s a pipe dream, but it would be nice.Stumble It!