Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread.

[scaeagles]

So in one breath you say, WB, that it immoral to use the tax dollars of those who oppose the war to support it and also that it is acceptable and even morally required (based on what I interpret your tone to be) to use the tax dollars of others to pay for welfare, housing, and medicare regardless of how they feel about those programs. It is not my intent to debate those programs now. I just find it interesting that tax dollars for what you support is OK, but not for what you don't support.

[Alex]

But that goes the other way. You support using tax dollars for the war but not so much for welfare and abortions.

We all tend to be hypocritical in this regard.

[scaeagles]

Oh, without a doubt. I was going to post that should my tax dollars not be permitted to be used for things I don't support, not a lot of my tax dollars would be used.

The difference is that I don't use it for a reason as to why those programs should be stopped or curtailed.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Except that Sac wrote that it is impossible to support the war if you are not fighting it yourself.

No, I said it's no more impossible than being against the war and still being supportive of the troops.

How can one "support" the war if one hasn't actually enlisted to go fight in it?

For clarity, I should said that I fail to understand the mindset that 'advocates' for a war with no intention of fighting in it. Support was the wrong word to use, I think.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So no one under 18 can support the war. No one in a wheel chair can supprt the war. No veterens of WWII or Vietnam can support the war.

All those groups would make effective suicide bombers for our side, no? But seriously, I make the distinction between those who can't fight in a war they believe in and those who won't.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The difference is that I don't use it for a reason as to why those programs should be stopped or curtailed.

Of course that's your reason. I find it hard to believe that if there were an identical program to, say, HUD that was entirely privately funded that you'd object to it on some moral reason. Remove the tax dollars from it, and your objection disolves.

[scaeagles]

OK - I can see a distinction between "can't" and "won't".

I recall when Michael Moore was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly (I'm not a fan of either). Moore asked O'Reilly something to the effect of "Would you want you son or daughter to die fighting in Iraq?"

That's like asking if you've stopped beating your wife. I disagree with the premise. I wouldn't want my kid to die in any war, but that does not mean I would not be proud of my kid for doing his duty, praying for his safety, and nervous as hell every night.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Of course that's your reason. I find it hard to believe that if there were an identical program to, say, HUD that was entirely privately funded that you'd object to it on some moral reason. Remove the tax dollars from it, and your objection disolves.

Insert abortion and that's not the case.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

being against the war and still being supportive of the troops.

If you're willing I'd like to see detail on what you think each of those things means. At core, my question still is "how do you support someone committing what you consider an immoral act"?

At least in such a way that "support" is a word used with any actual meaning.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Insert abortion and that's not the case.

Of course it's not the case for every issue. But you didn't mention abortion in your list, did you. You, quite conveniently, mentioned nothing but programs that I'm pretty sure you'd have no objection to if they were privately funded, meaning your objection is the exact same as Wendybeth's, that your tax dollars are being used for something you don't think they should be used for.

[Alex]

While I'm not opposed to "welfare," "housing," "medicaire" and "HUD" as blanket entities but there are portions of each that I would oppose even if they were government run but privately- or self-funding due to their market distorting effects.

But then I'm irrelevant since I admit that I oppose many programs simply because it requires taking money from unwilling participants without sufficient justification. I'm mostly just talking so much today since I'm trying to stay awake but not enervated enough to do real work.