Sacrifice is for them, not us

[DavidJames]

A few select quotes from this article:

"Speaking last week to thousands of Marines at Camp Pendleton, Calif., the commander in chief said, "The time of war is a time of sacrifice, especially for our military families. I urge every American to find some way to thank our military and to help out the military family down the street.""

"U.S. soldiers are dying and being wounded nearly every day in Iraq. Back home, many military families are financially stressed because their main breadwinners had to leave civilian jobs and ship out for Iraq for a year or more with their National Guard and reserve units."

"Bush inaugural planners figure a proper bash will cost about $40-million, a record. " (emphasis mine)

Apparently the sacrifice should be limited to the those fighting the war and their families. The aristocracy back home will celebrate their coronation at a record level

Note - Bush supporters need not waste their time responding, my sig's got you covered.

 

[Mycroft]

So how do you suggest that someone serving in the military serve in a time of war without making any sacrifice?

In what way would spending less on the inaugeration help the troops?

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
In what way would spending less on the inaugeration help the troops?

Well, that way they might scrape together the money to armor a few more humvees...

 

[KelvinG]

Don't Republicans and their supporters always brag about how they are the fiscially responsible ones.?

I can't imagine a more wasteful way to blow $40 million than on a pointless inaguration ceremony. How about setting up a camera in the oval office and swear him in there. No pomp, no circumstance, and hugely less expensive.

 

[Nikk]

Well the deficit for the last quarter did not quite reach $170billion did it?


So why not celebrate by blowing a mere $40 million you haven't got?

 

[DavidJames]

So how do you suggest that someone serving in the military serve in a time of war without making any sacrifice?

non sequitur, I made no comments regarding the military not sacrificing.

In what way would spending less on the inaugeration help the troops?

The link suggests some ideas. Seriously though, are you so smitten with Bush that you can't see how at least some of the 40 million couldn't be better used for the troops or their families?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by DavidJames
non sequitur, I made no comments regarding the military not sacrificing.

So that side of the equation you're okay with.

Originally posted by DavidJames
The link suggests some ideas. Seriously though, are you so smitten with Bush that you can't see how at least some of the 40 million couldn't be better used for the troops or their families?

I voted for Kerry. I am a registered Democrat. I consider myself to be a moderate liberal.

Speaking to a fellow liberal (you) I say it's unseemly to show resentment of displays of wealth. We live in a free society, and people are free to decide for themselves how to spend their money.

However, I agree it would be a good idea for there to be a fund to aid soldiers serving overseas and their families at home. Rather than bellyaching about someone else not contributing their money, you should lead by example and donate your money. This would not only directly aid soldiers and their families, but the example set would very likely create a similar fund from the conservative side. In this way, you could aid your cause without being a hypocrite.

So, have you donated any money for this purpose? I won’t ask how much, that would be in bad taste, but I would suggest that if you were aware of such a fund that advertising that instead of complaining about the Republican inauguration would be a far better way to spend your time.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Speaking to a fellow liberal (you) I say it's unseemly to show resentment of displays of wealth. We live in a free society, and people are free to decide for themselves how to spend their money.

YOU are missing the huge point, Mycroft. People ARE deciding how to spend their money - on armor. The THEY in THEIR MONEY is taxpayers.

Or did you seriously think that Bush was spending his own money on this thing?

And you don't sound like a liberal. "Displays of wealth", indeed.

 

[Daylight]

Question: If Bush's war is so important, how come his daughters are not over there fighting? Since this is his holy war, why do our sons and daughters have to die and his are exempt?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
YOU are missing the huge point, Mycroft. People ARE deciding how to spend their money - on armor. The THEY in THEIR MONEY is taxpayers.

So you're saying the government is spending a lot of money on armor? I have no doubt. The bill for this war is rather high.

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Or did you seriously think that Bush was spending his own money on this thing?

The article doesn't make it clear, but I'm guessing it's money raised by the campaign. If you have something that says it's taxpayer money, I'd like to see it.

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
And you don't sound like a liberal. "Displays of wealth", indeed.

A moderate liberal. As a liberal, I'm ashamed and embarrassed when other liberals shamelessly exploit soldiers in combat for political purposes without offering substantial support for them.

Rhetoric is cheap. It’s form without substance. If you think money should be donated to help soldiers and their families, then I will agree with you 100%. But if that conversation doesn’t start with you digging into your own wallet, then you’re a hypocrite.