Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 678
- 190
- Thread starter
- #61
Let's apply the same standards to politicians voting for war. How about any politician voting for war has to send their kids abroad to fight on the front lines. And if they have no kids, they have to go themselves.
Nah. Thats why people like me exist. Thats why we have a voulinteer military. And I dont want to have my life dependant on a liberal anti war hippy who would rather be smoking weed than looking after my back in a line company in Afghanistan.
Don't you think there is a conflict of interest in politicians voting for war if they have nothing personal on the line? It's my taxes going to fund a war I may or may not believe in. Why the heck should I be expected to fund a war in which some politician has nothing at stake?
Dumb point.
1. Who would sit in his place?
2. Do you really want people who dont want to serve in the military?
3. Those of us, like myself, who do serve know the risk were taking
4. Your taxes fund the constitutionaly sanctioned powers of congress, of which, war is one of them.
6. Many polititions have family, sons, or daughters, currently serving (vouluntairly) in the war they voted for.
What your advocating for is that a polititions son be taken by force to serve against his will by virtue of his fathers vote. Whereas I am advocating for those who pay the governments bills not to be forced to pay for more services because those who dont pay the bills want an extra welfare program to force more money away from those who earned it to those who havent. You see the difference? You advocate force and I advocate freedom. Which is often the core difference between liberals and conservatives.