• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Republicans DO NOT Support Our Troops

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Even though I think this is an illegal and immoral war in Iraq, I do think that the troops that come back from this environment, whether we agree or dis-agree with their actions, deserve the best from those of us that don't serve our country in such a direct way. However, apparantly the Bush Administration with his barely-a-majority-mandate-Republicans doesn't seem to care about supporting our troops when they come back. And for this, I would like to give them a big FU from the bottom of my heart.

Its not enough that the Big Dog on the hill lies to get us in the war, and Republicans from coast to coast look the other way when he commits impeachable offenses, but they have to disrespect the people that come back from all this crap. And for any Democrats that think they can get off scot free, you are just as much to blame for not being focused and decisive in objecting to this illegal war. Bowing down to these punk-a$$ Republicans is almost as bad as being one. Thank God I'm neither!

Here's a little something from The Nation:

Supporting Which Troops?

By now, it should be obvious that the "pro-defense" party doesn't give a damn about our troops, least of all veterans.

House Republicans ousted fellow conservative Chris Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for his tireless advocacy of veterans rights. Current Chairman Steve Buyer was promoted, in the words of one Republican aide, "to tell the veterans groups, 'Enough is enough.'"

Senate Republicans have repeatedly voted down funding increases for vets to keep pace with inflation and meet rising needs.

The Bush Administration tried to add an enrollment fee and double the prescription co-payment for VA health care.

And now the VA admits it is $1 billion short on health care funding for this year alone.

After months of dodging Congressional questioning, VA undersecretary for health Jonathan Perlin finally gave the House VA Committee an unexpectedly honest answer last week. It turns out the $1.6 billion spending increase promised last year has been a matter of accounting trickery, achieved by shifting money from one account to another, and cutting almost $1 billion for medical administration, facilities and prosthetic research.

After the testimony, irate Republican Senator Larry Craig joined his Democratic colleague Patty Murray in demanding emergency funds from the Bush Administration. "We're going to pound them like hell 'till we get them," Craig said of VA hearings scheduled this week. "Then we'll make some judgments."

Before Senate Republicans voted down Murray's plan to adequately pay for VA health care, for the second time in two months last April, VA Secretary Jim Nicholson promised the Senate he had the resources required. "I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide the timely, quality service that is always our goal," Nicholson wrote in a letter to Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison. The understaffed hospitals, lengthy waits, red tape and frequent complains seemed to be a figment of the Democratic imagination.

At a time when VA funding is 25 percent lower than it was 5 years ago, Murray's amendment would've provided badly needed funds for mental health treatment, new veterans and local clinics. Instead, the $80 billion supplemental for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the $2.6 trillion Senate Budget Resolution for 2006 denies full quality treatment to returning and current vets. The 13,000 soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003, 30 percent of whom return with post traumatic stress disorder or other psychological problems, can't even get a little help from their Republican friends.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country." A lefty named George Washington said that in 1789.


 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
However, apparently the Bush Administration with his barely-a-majority-mandate-Republicans doesn't seem to care about supporting our troops when they come back. And for this, I would like to give them a big FU from the bottom of my heart.

Its not enough that the Big Dog on the hill lies to get us in the war, and Republicans from coast to coast look the other way when he commits impeachable offenses, but they have to disrespect the people that come back from all this crap.
Ummm.... How are the republicans not supporting the soldiers? You never gave any examples of how the republicans are disrespecting soldiers. I have never personally disrespected any soldiers, but I do know a few people who have, and they were all democrats. People who have Anti-war sentiment basically say that they support the soldiers, but that the war is pointless. Thats like you doing your job and people saying to you I respect you, but your job is pointless and I can't see why anyone would do it anyway. I think that is quite disrespectful. I see that your post is just a rant really, because you never told how republicans disrespect soldiers. I don't know if you meant to talk about the soldiers pay after they come back? Yes, I do agree with you about how the democrats are also to blame. I think soldiers should get paid more, if thats what this post is about.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
Ummm.... How are the republicans not supporting the soldiers? You never gave any examples of how the republicans are disrespecting soldiers. I have never personally disrespected any soldiers, but I do know a few people who have, and they were all democrats. People who have Anti-war sentiment basically say that they support the soldiers, but that the war is pointless. Thats like you doing your job and people saying to you I respect you, but your job is pointless and I can't see why anyone would do it anyway. I think that is quite disrespectful. I see that your post is just a rant really, because you never told how republicans disrespect soldiers. I don't know if you meant to talk about the soldiers pay after they come back? Yes, I do agree with you about how the democrats are also to blame. I think soldiers should get paid more, if thats what this post is about.
We only see what we want to see, do we? Did you read the article I included? Here's the examples that conveniently didn't register while you were interpreting my post.

Example #1:
Senate Republicans have repeatedly voted down funding increases for vets to keep pace with inflation and meet rising needs.

Example #2:
The Bush Administration tried to add an enrollment fee and double the prescription co-payment for VA health care.

Example #3:
cutting almost $1 billion for medical administration, facilities and prosthetic research.

Example #4:
Senate Republicans voted down Murray's plan to adequately pay for VA health care,

You don't consider these actions disrespect! If your going to put a guy in an environment where there is a good chance he can be severly maimed or injured, you don't think you should at the very least make sure that if that does happen, he will be taken care of. This is not disrespect to you?

Like I said. We only believe what we want to believe. For me, I have had it up to hear with all these excuses regarding this war. I'm not going to rationalize a wrong!
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It seems really biased to me.

Looks to me someone came up with a conclusion and then researched for facts to support it. This is not how newsworthy information should be done.

Left wing bias.

There is no information given on any of those 4 examples that shows WHY that is a bad choice.

I'm not saying this information is wrong, but simply that this article is being fueled by a strong agenda.

IMO, this article deserves a casual read and then a "huh" response followed by casting it aside for real journalism. This is an editorial in disguise.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by IValueFreedom:
It seems really biased to me.

Looks to me someone came up with a conclusion and then researched for facts to support it. This is not how newsworthy information should be done.

Left wing bias.

There is no information given on any of those 4 examples that shows WHY that is a bad choice.

I'm not saying this information is wrong, but simply that this article is being fueled by a strong agenda.

IMO, this article deserves a casual read and then a "huh" response followed by casting it aside for real journalism. This is an editorial in disguise.
I'm sorry you think that putting someone in harms way, then enacting legislation that decreases there ability to heal if they get injured, is biased.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
IValueFreedom said:
It seems really biased to me.

Looks to me someone came up with a conclusion and then researched for facts to support it. This is not how newsworthy information should be done.

Left wing bias.

There is no information given on any of those 4 examples that shows WHY that is a bad choice.

I'm not saying this information is wrong, but simply that this article is being fueled by a strong agenda.

IMO, this article deserves a casual read and then a "huh" response followed by casting it aside for real journalism. This is an editorial in disguise.
It's from The Nation....ultra left news source....
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by cnredd:
It's from The Nation....ultra left news source....
At least my thoughts are logical. Yours, on the other hand, take more of this form...


An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority.
 

Tetracide

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast, U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's not even a news source. It's an op-ed site. Which is funny, because Billy used it as factual reference in his original post. That's like me posting commentary by Rush Limbaugh. You're just going to laugh, just like I did when I read your first post.

I'm not going to respond to your tripe because it is unfounded, unsubstantiated. However, I am going to call you a ****ing idiot for thinking that I and millions others don't support our troops. Not only is it preposterously idiotic to say such a thing, but it is also deeply insulting to a patriot such as myself.

If anything, it is the Left that disrespect our troops more so than the Right. Penis Durbin and his Nazi and Soviet gulag comment, and the giddy nature the Left takes when a report of U.S. soldiers death in Iraq.

If all I had to hang my hat on was the continued body count of American soldiers, I would quit the show. I would not want to embrace a philosophy that was bent on American failing just so my argument gained a little substance.

I don’t even know you, and I’m already telling you to **** off.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Billo_Really said:
I'm sorry you think that putting someone in harms way, then enacting legislation that decreases there ability to heal if they get injured, is biased.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing like that, nor believe that in the least. THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED. As such, I do not believe that it should be taken as a credible news source, or something that should weight in on anyone's opinion on the subject. This article is not using logic and reasoning, instead they're misconstruing facts in order to defend their position. IT SHOULD BE READ FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY.

I'm the one who is sorry if you can't see that this is the case. As I personally believe that you're intelligent enough to realize if this is slanted against Bush or not, you're blinded to all things except what you wish to see if you think this is legit.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Tetracide said:
If anything, it is the Left that disrespect our troops more so than the Right. Penis Durbin and his Nazi and Soviet gulag comment, and the giddy nature the Left takes when a report of U.S. soldiers death in Iraq.

If all I had to hang my hat on was the continued body count of American soldiers, I would quit the show. I would not want to embrace a philosophy that was bent on American failing just so my argument gained a little substance.
Don't go too cazy now... I agree 100% that this article is bogus. But that doesn't mean that the Left does not support soldiers or that the Left's only reason for not supporting the war is American boys dying.

That too is incorrect.

There are many reasons as to why I do not agree with the War in Iraq, the Bush administration, and Bush himself. But they are based on logic and reasoning. Not misguided facts (as much as I can help it, I'm not perfect). When I asked for Bush's resignation in a letter, the deaths were only one reason, and not because of the amount either.

Try not to make such blanket generalizations please, it only breeds contempt towards the other side.
 

Tetracide

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast, U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I didn't say all of the Left. I said the Left more so than the Right. That is undisputable.

The attraction the liberal media and the kook foot soldiers have to stories of American deaths, Abu Graib, Gitmo, are all part of the attitude elements of the left have towards this war. They would prefer to have these overblown incidents shouted from the highest hill top, even if that means defacing the American image to the entire world, JUST so they can get back into the White House.

I may be stretching it a bit, but I do not wonder off the trail without evidence, of which I've pointed out. I too have reasons for saying what I say, and believing what I believe, and it too is based on fact and logic.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Tetracide said:
They would prefer to have these overblown incidents shouted from the highest hill top, even if that means defacing the American image to the entire world, JUST so they can get back into the White House.
Good job. Totally not a generalization :\

Oh, and if you wanted to, you can always PROVE that the reason people are using their RIGHT to grievances is ONLY so the "left" can take back the White House... then be my guest.
 

Tetracide

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast, U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That's a different argument, and does not fit this thread.

If you really can't get what I'm saying, I would be more than happy to PM you something detailing why I feel how I feel.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Tetracide:
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing like that, nor believe that in the least. THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED. As such, I do not believe that it should be taken as a credible news source, or something that should weight in on anyone's opinion on the subject. This article is not using logic and reasoning, instead they're misconstruing facts in order to defend their position. IT SHOULD BE READ FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY.
Whether it is biased or not does not prove it is true or un-true. But thinking of it in terms of "...ENTERTAINMENT VALUE..." is definately false. For the simple fact that the assertions made are easily verifiable. Such as the voting records of Republicans on certain bills and proposals submitted to Congress. How can it possibly be "...ENTERTAINMENT VALUE..." if some of the evidence is a matter of public record.

And besides, to say that it cannot be treated as a truth because it was an Op-Ed, is a fallacy of logic that does not disprove it. If you don't believe me, go find out for yourself. Instead of trashing what I say and then calling it a day because you actually thought you proved something.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Tetracide:
You miss quoted there buddy. I didn't write that.
Oops! My bad. Thanks for pointing it out. I guess I had a little too much kool-aid. Consider the retraction printed and the revised version as follows:

Originally posted by IValueFreedom:
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing like that, nor believe that in the least. THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED. As such, I do not believe that it should be taken as a credible news source, or something that should weight in on anyone's opinion on the subject. This article is not using logic and reasoning, instead they're misconstruing facts in order to defend their position. IT SHOULD BE READ FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY.
 

tr1414

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
372
Reaction score
0
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Even though I think this is an illegal and immoral war in Iraq, I do think that the troops that come back from this environment, whether we agree or dis-agree with their actions, deserve the best from those of us that don't serve our country in such a direct way. However, apparantly the Bush Administration with his barely-a-majority-mandate-Republicans doesn't seem to care about supporting our troops when they come back. And for this, I would like to give them a big FU from the bottom of my heart.

Its not enough that the Big Dog on the hill lies to get us in the war, and Republicans from coast to coast look the other way when he commits impeachable offenses, but they have to disrespect the people that come back from all this crap. And for any Democrats that think they can get off scot free, you are just as much to blame for not being focused and decisive in objecting to this illegal war. Bowing down to these punk-a$$ Republicans is almost as bad as being one. Thank God I'm neither!

Here's a little something from The Nation:

Supporting Which Troops?

By now, it should be obvious that the "pro-defense" party doesn't give a damn about our troops, least of all veterans.

House Republicans ousted fellow conservative Chris Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for his tireless advocacy of veterans rights. Current Chairman Steve Buyer was promoted, in the words of one Republican aide, "to tell the veterans groups, 'Enough is enough.'"

Senate Republicans have repeatedly voted down funding increases for vets to keep pace with inflation and meet rising needs.

The Bush Administration tried to add an enrollment fee and double the prescription co-payment for VA health care.

And now the VA admits it is $1 billion short on health care funding for this year alone.

After months of dodging Congressional questioning, VA undersecretary for health Jonathan Perlin finally gave the House VA Committee an unexpectedly honest answer last week. It turns out the $1.6 billion spending increase promised last year has been a matter of accounting trickery, achieved by shifting money from one account to another, and cutting almost $1 billion for medical administration, facilities and prosthetic research.

After the testimony, irate Republican Senator Larry Craig joined his Democratic colleague Patty Murray in demanding emergency funds from the Bush Administration. "We're going to pound them like hell 'till we get them," Craig said of VA hearings scheduled this week. "Then we'll make some judgments."

Before Senate Republicans voted down Murray's plan to adequately pay for VA health care, for the second time in two months last April, VA Secretary Jim Nicholson promised the Senate he had the resources required. "I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide the timely, quality service that is always our goal," Nicholson wrote in a letter to Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison. The understaffed hospitals, lengthy waits, red tape and frequent complains seemed to be a figment of the Democratic imagination.

At a time when VA funding is 25 percent lower than it was 5 years ago, Murray's amendment would've provided badly needed funds for mental health treatment, new veterans and local clinics. Instead, the $80 billion supplemental for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the $2.6 trillion Senate Budget Resolution for 2006 denies full quality treatment to returning and current vets. The 13,000 soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003, 30 percent of whom return with post traumatic stress disorder or other psychological problems, can't even get a little help from their Republican friends.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country." A lefty named George Washington said that in 1789.



What the hell happned to you that your so warped in your thinking? Not that I care ... it's just that one finds so few true morons....
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Maybe some Republicans don't support our troops but Conservatives damn sure do and i can't say the same thing for Liberals like Kerry, Kennedy, or Durbin.......
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Republicans DO NOT Support Our Troops
Turbin Durbin must be a republican,as well as Kennedy,Boxer and the other liberal scum in office.I guess CNN,NBC,MSNBC and the other liberal Networks must be republicans.Perhaps the ACLU,Am-Nasty international are really republicans.
 

tr1414

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
372
Reaction score
0
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You can't debate with FACTS.... these are liberals we're talking about... facts just get in the way
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by tr1414:
What the hell happned to you that your so warped in your thinking? Not that I care ... it's just that one finds so few true morons....
Why is my thinking warped? And what makes me a moron? Can you give me some facts?
Originally posted by tr1414:
You can't debate with FACTS.... these are liberals we're talking about... facts just get in the way
I'm still waiting. There's nothing in my way. The facts, dude. Where's your facts? I want:

A fact that shows my opinion is warped.
A fact that shows you do not care.
A fact that shows why I'm a moron.
A fact that shows I can't debate with facts.
A fact that shows why facts are in my way.

If you can't back up these simple comments [with facts], maybe you should think twice the next time you decide to shoot your mouth off.
 

tr1414

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
372
Reaction score
0
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
lol your a brave guy on the net huh?.... so funny & WRONG!!!
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by tr1414:
lol your a brave guy on the net huh?.... so funny & WRONG!!!
I looked up brave in the dictionary, it said, "NOT YOU!"

Prove me wrong Braveheart, answer my questions. That is, of coarse, if you got the stones!
 

tr1414

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
372
Reaction score
0
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm not here to go back & forth with a pre-schooler like you.... but you'd only find out what brave is by looking it up.... any moron knows (so you know this) that liberals DON'T VOTE FOR WEAPONS!!!! Check out Zel Miller's key note speach at the R.N.C. For a lib to even make a thread like is yet more proof not only that YOUR a moron but that liberalism IS a mental disorder.As for MY stones.... I served six years in the U.S. Army... 11-B but you would'nt know what that is ... have fun in the land of Oz.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
umm... I don't mean to interupt, but you never provided any proof of any kind, let alone facts, that support your claims tr1414 :\

YOU'RE(not your) losing this argument.

Personal views don't mean anything in debating. Use facts, logic, and/or evidence to support your claims or don't post what you have to say.
 
Top Bottom