ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
View Poll Results: Are you optomistic about the change?
Dude, have you just been messing with us all along? I don't even know what to say about this post....this blows my mind........
in the immortal words of Chuck D:
"Can't Trust It!"
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I favor salary caps, myself. I think five or ten million per annum is the absolute maximum a normal person would ever need to live on, and actually no one needs to even go that high; who couldn't live on $500K?? Again, look at the Japanese model. Not saying it's perfect, but the ethic is that even the highest CEO does not totally dwarf his lowest worker in salary or perks; it's a matter of respect for one another.
Now, if companies make lots of profit, because they provide products and/or services that are genuinely beneficial to the public, then they should not be heavily taxed, so as to encourage their good works and employ more and more people.
But individuals making multi-millions per year while some people are literally going weeks without a piece of bread or bowl of rice ... that is simply unconscionable. It's just too unbalanced to be sustainable. The most wealthy should be willing to sacrifice luxurious living so the least fortunate can at least have the food, shelter, and medical care they need to survive.
So basically you are advocating communism? Umm...yeah, no thanks.
The mere fact that America has elected a non-white man as president is a tremendous image-booster for America, in itself. Blacks have been in America almost as long as whites, and originally they came dragged in chains and treated like animals -- sometimes worse -- and for almost all of America's history this was never redressed, until now. So, as I still come to grasp this historic event, I am even more relieved that America has risen to the challenge of overcoming racial barriers.
I may not agree with some of Obama's thoughts or plans for leading America, but he has enough of the kind of sensitivity for both the black and the white perspective/experience to be able to move America forward in many areas, to redress many of those old unhealed wounds. Where we disagree I believe he will genuinely listen. From what I've seen he has that kind of character. I pray so.
I really don't know how this addresses the issue of International relations and military spending but...ok. I guess I agree that Obama is a great selection for social change, although I think it is far from over and see many challenges ahead of him in that regard. The notion that his election is evidence having erased racial barriers is wishful thinking and I forsee this as actually raising some civil unrest rather then lessening it, at least in the short term. In the long term it is a very good thing. However, right now this country's most presssing needs are ecnomic and internationl, for which I don't think he is the most suitable for the job.
And I do now believe that Obama is serious about protecting America. I do believe he feels enough of a stake in America to want to protect her from the evil designs some still have toward America. As to nukes and their use: Iran and N. Korea may not expect the U.S. to use them -- but that's only because there is no need to use them. Should anybody try to use them anywhere on this earth, I do not fear that any American president would hesitate to use them if the situation became that extremely dire. Even Obama would know that if the nation's survival was at stake, he would use the the nuclear option. But I do not see that threat anywhere on our horizon, so I am not staying up at night worrying about such events happening.
But that is exactly my point. You claimed Nuclear weapons and advanced targeting systems as a fall back position for a slashed military budget. As you stated, it really doesn't work like that any more. Its a doomsday device but that is about it. This bolsters the notion that we will be taking a lesser place on the world stage. Where in the past we may have been the champion or instigator, now we will be only one of a number of players. Again, I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, just that our role as the superpower is lessening or possibly gone.