It most certainly does add up. You pay your taxes to the state in exchange for the protection of the State, the joint infrastructure the State provides, and all the other public works.
You don't get to demand where your money is spent except with your vote. When you voted, you voted for representation to decide how the State's coffers are spent.
If you don't like how it's being spent, rethink your vote next time and cast it for someone more in line with how you think it should be spent.
I remember Reagan negotiating with Russia, and when he was doing it, he was applying the pressure to them. If Obama wants Iran to know that missteps by them will have consequences, I am all for it. As much as I bash Obama, I have to give him kudos here.
In that case I'd like my share of the money back. We all funded Bush's adventures and now we have to fund Obama's. We've been in Afghanistan for about 8 years and Iraq for about 7. That's 15 years worth of 2 wars. I'm not sure we can afford another adventure in Iran.
And it doesn't make me feel better to know my bank account is no more stressed than anyone else's. As a matter of fact it makes me feel just as bad for everyone else.
I do. Unfortunately they're not what one would call successful. And that leaves me with the wonderful option of a democrat or a republican. To put it another way: Different dogs with the same ol fleas.
We live in the most culturally diverse nation on earth and yet we are represented (let's be honest) by only two political parties. And they are almost identical.
So while I appreciate your advice to "rethink my vote" there's not really a whole lot to rethink is there? You're pretty much telling me if I don't like being robbed then I should choose my other option. Which is to be shot.
U.S. and allies open talks with Iran on nuclear program - Los Angeles Times Read a newspaper, it helps
Hold on there Hoss, Obama has pushed the button yet. :mrgreen:
Somehow... I doubt Obama has the balls to do it!
Well it sounds to me like your issue isn't "funding these little adventures" as much as it is that you have a terrible case of sour grapes because your fringe politicians aren't getting elected.
I'm not quite sure what to tell you other than it sounds like a personal problem to me. I guess you could always either move to a different country or spend energy getting your candidates elected.
You do have another option which is to stop paying your taxes. However, that is not likely to end in an outcome you find enjoyable.
Read my new thread on Obama's nuke program.Or the stupidity.
Thats not Obama
*Bangs head on table* Obama never said he personally would go Iran.
*Bangs head on table* Obama never said he personally would go Iran.
Ok fair point but he does say 'we' not 'I'. Also does it matter who does the talking? Diplomats are paid for a reason
Nice spin but not credibile. Obama was going to be the great speaker that could fix this. Now he is using the military. Does that just make him another chicken hawk president that never served in the military?
He never argued against using the military all together, indeed he refused to rule out an attack on Iran, its hardly either-or.
It most certainly does add up. You pay your taxes to the state in exchange for the protection of the State, the joint infrastructure the State provides, and all the other public works.
You don't get to demand where your money is spent except with your vote. When you voted, you voted for representation to decide how the State's coffers are spent.
If you don't like how it's being spent, rethink your vote next time and cast it for someone more in line with how you think it should be spent.
So much for Obama talking to Iran
Obama is the one who claimed negotiations was needed
Yet he has not done what he said he would.
Well, just what would you have him do? Invade Iran? And for what? Just because they've violated U.N. nuclear regulatory resolutions? I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because a nation violates a U.N. mandate does NOT mean that it is a U.S.A problem! We are NOT the police force of the world!! And I really wish folks would get that through their heads.
And so what if during the campaign trail someone asked the question whether or not then Sen. Obama would be willing to have talks with troubling nations w/o pre-conditions and one of those nations mentioned happened to be Iran. The man said, "Yes", he would be willing to sit and hold talks. And? You're upset that he didn't mention Iran by name. Well, Russia wasn't among the countries mentioned yet he used them as a example of how former Presidents did hold talks with them to stem escalating troubles. What's your point? It was a general question and he answered it. Instead of trying to spin it to make a big deal out of nothing, let's just move on shall we? Frankly, I'd think you guys (the opposition) would applaud this move against Iran. Instead, you're once again condemning any action the man takes. Just what would you have him do in this situation?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?