- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 18,930
- Reaction score
- 1,040
- Location
- HBCA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
At least my thoughts are logical. Yours, on the other hand, take more of this form...Originally posted by cnredd:
It's from The Nation....ultra left news source....
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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 Tetracide:
You miss quoted there buddy. I didn't write that.
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.
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.
Republicans DO NOT Support Our Troops
Why is my thinking warped? And what makes me a moron? Can you give me some facts?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....
I'm still waiting. There's nothing in my way. The facts, dude. Where's your facts? I want:Originally posted by tr1414:
You can't debate with FACTS.... these are liberals we're talking about... facts just get in the way
I looked up brave in the dictionary, it said, "NOT YOU!"Originally posted by tr1414:
lol your a brave guy on the net huh?.... so funny & WRONG!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?