Why Do Republicans Hate America's Veterans?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 1 2006, 11:28 AM) [snapback]279707[/snapback]</div>

I know cops hate the facts and like to make it up as they go along, but really now, I was able to quickly verify what Daniel et al wrote about homeless vets. There is an organization dedicated to homeless vets, The National Coalition for Homeless Vets:

http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm

I also went straight to The Source to verify this isn't part of some dreaded "liberal smear campaign" whatever the hell that is. The VA itself claims the problem of homeless vets is real, and again this backs up what Daniel witnessed in Moorehead:

http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1

The GAO has cranked out numerous studies on the deficiencies at VA hospitals, this one on lack of employment screeing for VA employees I found troubling:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06544.pdf

So feel free to make up whatever bullshit you want to, in that regard it's a free country and in your line of work it's probably a job requirement. I personally find it offensive that veterans are treated that way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 1 2006, 11:28 AM) [snapback]279707[/snapback]</div>

What a great opinion you have of veterans. Are you trying to validate the title of this thread, "Why do Republicans Hate America's Veterans?"

VA hospitals aren't FREE - you earn their services by service to your country, putting yourself in danger if so ordered. It's a benefit promised - and then a promise broken.

Vets who choose to be homeless? They have a club maybe? People BEGGING them to please take this housing, but they refuse because they like being homeless better?

Yes Virginia, truely ignorant people DO exist in America!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gschoen @ Jul 1 2006, 11:30 AM) [snapback]279683[/snapback]</div>

I can personally vouch for the above statements. It's even worse for reservists/Guardsmen. Until just a year or two ago, reservists/Guardsmen, regardless of status, were not eligible for any VA benefits, whatsoever.

What's particularly galling is how reservists/Guardsmen are now considered active-duty personnel 'on-the-cheap', i.e., frontline troops that normally receive only a fraction of the pay, along with only a fraction of the benefits afforded 'real' active-duty servicemembers. To top it off, even though you get inadequate or no medical treatment, you're entered into the VA database, which is then subsequently stolen, leaving open the very real possibility of identity theft.

It's the old Republican song-and-dance. They attack Democrats/liberals as being 'soft' on national security and hating the troops by questioning the 'war' when, in fact, it's the Republicans themselves who are really the ones who hate American's veterans. It's easy to understand why. Really 'supporting the troops' entails a whole lot more than just slapping a yellow magnet on the trunk of a vehicle and arguing, ad infinitum, on some Prius discussion forum. Volunteering time at a VA center and seeing, first hand, how this country treats its vets would make them much more believable.

Even better would be if those who 'support the troops' enlisted in the Army Infantry and volunteered to walk patrol in downtown Falluja or ar Ramadi, I'd give them more credence. The Army enlistment age requirement has just been raised (again) to 42 so, eventually, anyone (of any age) should get their chance if they really wanted to 'support the troops' by spending some time in a hostile fire zone.

Personaly, though, as an ex-reservist who did his eleven months in Iraq at the 'request' of the Smirking Chimp and his buddies, I do not currently 'support the troops'. I did in the beginning but only because those troops had no idea that this kind of lunacy was going to take place when they signed up and had no choice but to do as ordered and report for duty.

Enough time has passed so that anyone who was in the military at the beginning of the Iraq invasion/occupation has had ample opportunity to leave the military if they so desired. I didn't agree with what was happening and although I had 15 years in, did not re-enlist at the end of my involuntarily extended ('stop-lossed') ETS. I would not go back, either, regardless of how much money they threw at me.

Anyone in the military now knows/knew full well what they were getting into when they enlisted/re-enlisted and, therefore, fully support the decisions/actions of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq and the ill-conceived, ill-advised, so-called 'war on terra'. Since I do not support those decisions/actions, I do not support them.

 

Kind of sums it up...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jul 3 2006, 06:09 PM) [snapback]280721[/snapback]</div>

So, let me understand this:

An active, deployed , reservist E5 with 8 years get paid less than and active duty E5 with 8 years service?

And, you applied and received no medical benefits for injuries sustained or conditions that developed as a reservist on active duty?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 3 2006, 09:36 PM) [snapback]280739[/snapback]</div>

When you're on active-duty, everyone is supposed to get the same rate and medical benefits. Anyone who has served in the military (particularly someone who says they were in for 22 years) already knows this and, by the way the questions were worded, I suspect this was already 'understood' (but I'll play along).

A common question asked by administrative military personnel to anyone seeking administrative/medical assistance is "Active-duty, Guard, or reserves?" implying that the service offered is going to be different depending on the answer. Officially, this isn't supposed to happen but, believe me, it does. I know of a few heated confrontations between active-duty reservists and regular active-duty guys when this question was asked.

The distinction really applies when an active, deployed reservist E5 comes off active-duty and returns to the civilian world. The point is, if reservists and Guardsmen are going to be called up for active-duty to go on these little 'adventures' with the same frequency as 'regular' active-duty personnel, they should be receiving the same benefits (and level of service) the regular guys get 24/7. That's why reservists and Guardsmen are troops 'on-the-cheap' - you only have to offer them active-duty pay and benefits while they're on active-duty. The rest of the time, they really just get whatever they have/had in the civilian world.

In addition to the lack of benefits when not on active-duty, many reservists and Guardsmen take a big hit in income when they're called up for active-duty. This situation doesn't happen with the regulars. Some civilian employers will make up the difference but you're SOL if you're a federal employee who gets called up. There have been bills submitted to make it mandatory for federal employers to make up the difference but they've been defeated. I'm guessing by Republicans since they control both the Senate and House, but that's just a guess. Overall, my annual income was cut in half for the time I was on active-duty.

As to medical benefits, here's an example: I had a tooth come apart while on active-duty. Some guy who constructed a temporary tooth in a tent at Logistical Base Seitz outside Baghdad told me he couldn't do a permanent fix and supposedly forwarded my information to the unit to which I had been involuntarily transferred.

When I returned CONUS and was being out-processed at Fort Dix, I kept asking for dental care and kept getting told, "They'll take care of it at the VA". When I got home, the VA looked at it and insisted it was okay, that it would last a long time. A couple of months ago, the temporary tooth fell apart. I called the VA about it and they said they had no record of it and since I had been discharged, they couldn't help me. It cost me around $400 to get it fixed.

But even without being called to active duty, 'benefits' are difficult to come by. Whenever I had to go for a required four-year physical, neither the VA, nor any active-duty facility, was even remotely interested. You had to find another reserve or Guard medical unit to perform any service-related medical procedures.

Like I said, in the 'old days', these sorts of things weren't that big of a deal. But now that the reserves and National Guard are being used (and used frequently) on the same level as active-duty regulars, well, they should be getting the same level of benefits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Jul 3 2006, 09:22 PM) [snapback]280726[/snapback]</div>

When Bush chose Representative Ron Portman from Ohio's heavily conservative second Congressional District to be the US Trade Representative, a special election was held in August, 2005 to replace him. Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran and Democrat, was defeated by Jean Schmidt, a Republican and wealthy farmer's daughter with no personal military service (or any of her immediate relatives, as far as I know).

Three months later, after PA Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat and former Marine colonel that had been wounded and decorated in Vietnam, stated that the US should withdraw its troops from Iraq, Ms. Schmidt embarrassed both herself and her party by making the following statement on the House floor:

• "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

A loud melee ensued and, approximately 11 minutes later, she quietly withdrew her remarks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jul 3 2006, 08:46 PM) [snapback]280807[/snapback]</div>

Well, I did serve the 22 years.

Thank you for your voluntary service.

To your points:

As to being paid '24/7', you were paid what every active duty person of your rank and longevity was paid. Except, upon completion of your active duty, you returned to your civilian job and, if you continue in the reserves, periodic active duty periods and training weekends. If you stay long enough, you will get a monthly retainer in addition to any other retirement moneys.

Pardon me for having little pity for those who sucked on the military reserve money pipe on weekends and active duty 2 weeks, and now bitch when the other part of that contract comes due. My dad served in WWII and was recalled to active for the Korean Police Action when I was 1 year-old; He too left a good job in order to fulfill his duty and contract.

As to the medical, I cannot speak for that. I have not used any military medical since I retired, except for pharmacy, and then that formulary does not have all of the medications that my doctor prescribes (separate issue).

I trust that you are now employed and have filed for whatever VA benefits you deserve; I truly hope that your concerns and medical issues are resolved.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Jul 3 2006, 07:59 PM) [snapback]280689[/snapback]</div>

Obviously another person that has thier own twisted view of cops, you people crack me up... :lol:

My point was twisted around to suite your reply.. My point was that in the publics eye the VA is a free hospital and thus the vets are forced to wait longer.. I also didn't say there are not any homeless Vets, but did agree there are a lot of homless people that claim to be and are not... (twist-twist) Gawd some of you are worse than a woman from Bridezillas..



Libera Agenda:
The potato farmer work his field tend to his crops grows a good crop. He then harvests his crop then the liberals come in and take 1/2 his crop and give the other half to the homless camp next door because everyone deserves thier share even if they didnt work for it..

(call it what you will, but its all over the net and it all says the same thing. Take the rose colored glasses off )

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 4 2006, 06:37 AM) [snapback]280957[/snapback]</div>

Difference between the liberal and the neo-conservative:

The potato farmer works hard to grow his crop. The government levies income tax on the farmer, ranging from about 10% if he is a small farmer in a very low tax bracker to about 35% if he is an enormously wealthy farmer in a very high tax bracket.

The liberal and the neo-con both use about half that tax to wage a war in a foreign country so the farmer can continue to work his farm with humungous diesel-guzzling tractors.

The liberal gives the other half of the tax to the homeless folks "next door" because we are a wealthy country where some folks think we ought to give some creedence to a guy who lived 2,000 years ago and told us to share what we have with those less fortunate than ourselves.

The neo-con gives that half to his super-rich buddies because they'll give some of it back to the neo-con so he can run campaign ads smearing the service records of his liberal opponents.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 4 2006, 09:26 AM) [snapback]280955[/snapback]</div>

Kind of like Bush, huh? Of course, he didn't bitch because he never got to 'the other part of the contract'.

I guess I must have missed the fine print about having to serve for eleven months in a half-assed, Vietnam-like, endless insurgency, along with the part that said I was going to be involuntarily extended and transferred to a military unit involved with the torture and abuse of detainees.

I'll pardon you because it's easy when I think of the 22 years of service you performed. What was your service branch and duty position, again?

That's nothing like sucking on the military reserve money pipe, is it?

And the same to you.

 

Off Topic:

A view taken from tyhe web on liberal arguments relating to the war, america and other topics:


#1: Attack Your Opponent
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, insult his career, bring up past postings, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat.

Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Neo-Con, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him.

#2: Switch Your Arguments
If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to "of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam". Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn't exist -- the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory!

#3: Raise The Bar
When your opponent presents you with proof of anything -- UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc -- state that it's not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called "proof" doesn't mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn't count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof... and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry -- and then you know you've got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was "laughable".

#4: Attack The Source
When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there's only one way to beat him -- attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent's facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect.

Put down FOX news channel and anyone that refers to it -- ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing.

If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument -- you know that "left wing" and "correct" are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist's web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point.

#5: Blame America First/Moral Equivalency
It's very important, at all times, to remember that America & the Republicans are the REAL bad guys here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam's humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America's own "atrocities". Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam's 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law.

Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Convention did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries.

Never give credence to your opponent's arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc... it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond the supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in the movie Platoon and there is always a conspricy surounding anything that happens on our soil that points back to the goverment.

This is how I've watched Liberals argue every day for the last few months. The only thing that matters to them is winning ie. getting thier point accross, by any means or tactics necessary to convert your way of thinking. Finding out the truth of the matter doesn't seem to matter at all, as long as you conform.

I have heard the argument that the Neo-cons do the same thing, I have yet to see it here. As the Libs out number us 90% to 10%

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jul 4 2006, 07:39 AM) [snapback]280968[/snapback]</div>

Ehh, Bush did try, just chose the wrong aircraft

That fine print will bite ya everytime...it is why I retired at 22 vice more; I chose to retire rather than extend to 5 more years at sea.

The 'reserve pipe' was a shot at all of those who whined when they were expected to actually serve; you went and served, instead of calling a press conference like a few others.

Some points:

This conflict is the first one in which we are streched to the point that in other times, we had the draft to fall back on for personnel. If this continues apace, we may have to revisit the Selective Service and military draft again. I hope not; I was one who was drafted after losing my 2S deferment and was able to join the Navy vice go in the Marines or Army as a 'draftee' ( draftees were not well received by the volunteers even then, Viet Nam era).

US Navy, E1-E7, acoustic and electronic analysis collection. Iceland, North Carolina, Grand Turk, USS Marvin Shields, USS Dubuque, USS Oldendorf, USS Cushing, Fleet Combat Training Center, Pacific, Fleet/Afloat Traing Group, Pacific. Sea of Japan, Arabian Sea, Persian/Arabian Gulf, 38th Parallel Korea, Spratley Islands. 1968-1990. Now I work as a defense contractor; we provide a training environment that simulates war fighting. We train Navy, Marine, Air Force, and Army, as well as foreign forces.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 4 2006, 08:37 AM) [snapback]280957[/snapback]</div>

Well if I recall you're also the same prick who had the cute joke about a woman having a radical mastectomy - something about being lopsided.

If anybody in the U.S. has "rose colored glasses" on it would have to be the NeoCon nuts. I see the world for what it is, not as the exclusive property of the United States of America.

As far as "free" health care, I'm sure you really shun Universal Health Coverage. But it's ok if cops receive good health coverage, you "deserve" it right? Much like the RCMP here, they automatically get moved to the front of the waiting lines.

I don't hate all cops, just the ones who are pricks who think they are better than those disgusting civvies who pay their salary.

 

Go JAY Go! I had a really funny but personal flame post directed to 04 but erased it as I thought the humor would be dampened in his eyes by the flame. Too bad because it took me 15 minutes to perfect. You would have roared!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 4 2006, 08:26 AM) [snapback]280955[/snapback]</div>

If that's not support for the troops, I don't know what is. Reserve units have been the mainstay of this country's military since the Revolutionary War. We used to call them "militia". After WWII, reserve military became a mainstay of our foreign policy and cold war deterrence. To maintain a fully active military with the capability to fight two independent conflicts (a requirement during cold war, and the situation we're currently in) would leave little money for anything else. I'd say the USA gets a hell of a good "Return on Investment (ROI)" on it's Reservists!

It was a great accomplishment of conservatives to get the word "liberal" to sound dirty and evil. Liberal, moderate, and conservative define nothing, they're markers. Like North, South, East, and West. I guess it makes sense, since the same people who use liberal as an attack do the same with geography. (The people living on the coasts just don't understand us...etc. etc.))

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 4 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]281031[/snapback]</div>

For all other Conservatives that may read this thread I will point back to rule #1 inregards to
jayman & MarinJohn's statments..

#1: Attack Your Opponent
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, insult his career, bring up past posts, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat.

Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Neo-Con, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him.

Its sad to see that my post was utterly correct, <--
I will not stupe to anger I will put on Jaymans liberal rose colored glasses when I recieve Flames..

I would also like to say its a real shame that our military makes the same as a person who works for McDonalds $7-$10 an hr ( I have two family members in the armed forces) I am proud of them and their service just as I am pround of my grandfathers service in korea & pearl.. I support the military and the vets they have all served their country no matter if they where stationed here or overseas.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 4 2006, 12:18 PM) [snapback]281043[/snapback]</div>

Are you on medication? If not, see a doctor pronto

And you are NOT a "conservative." That word has been twisted around so much it no longer has any meaning. My parents were Conservative: they believed in small government, staying out of other folks business, being painfully thrifty, etc. Under that definition, I'm also a Conservative. But I'm NOT a "conservative" as you define it and as how most "conservatives" define themselves, which appears to be a bunch of greedy, ignorant, insensitive, loudmouthed, spendthrift fools.

Don't bother with a reply. I'm heading out the door for the remainder of my vacation.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 4 2006, 12:02 PM) [snapback]281031[/snapback]</div>

You can still send it to my work or personal email account. Humor is good, humor is our friend ...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Jul 4 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]281046[/snapback]</div>

Ahh rule, #1 & #2.

Thats my reply :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jul 4 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]281050[/snapback]</div>

Not only do you post the SAME L-O-N-G tirade in multiple threads, you quote your own manefesto only 5 posts later. (then reference it 2 posts later.)

Can't think of anything else to say? Silence is golden.