• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
But that's not what this thread is about. It's about assholes that say they support the troops while at the same time taking away their ability to heal.


This thread is about bashing the Republican Party...nothing more.

These would be the same type of assholes that have come out of both Parties for the last twenty years. When it comes to funding National necessities, cutting taxes, and fixing defecits, it has always been at the price of military cutbacks, loss of benefits, operational readiness, and scaled back defense spending.

It's only when a rival Party can throw it in the other's face and rallies the public that it is ever even an issue.

By the way...their is an unprecedented amount of money being spent on weapons upgrades, uniform upgrades, equipment upgrades, and inventory upgrades. Something we have been needing since the Gulf War. That money has to come from somewhere and taxes have not been raised.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
This thread is about bashing the Republican Party...nothing more.

These would be the same type of assholes that have come out of both Parties for the last twenty years. When it comes to funding National necessities, cutting taxes, and fixing defecits, it has always been at the price of military cutbacks, loss of benefits, operational readiness, and scaled back defense spending.

It's only when a rival Party can throw it in the other's face and rallies the public that it is ever even an issue.

By the way...their is an unprecedented amount of money being spent on weapons upgrades, uniform upgrades, equipment upgrades, and inventory upgrades. Something we have been needing since the Gulf War. That money has to come from somewhere and taxes have not been raised.
Any party that starts doing some pretty f_cked things, deserves a bashing. They have it coming. They bring a lot of sh!t on themselves. As I've said in my previous posts (in this thread), I'm not letting the Democrats off the hook either. I have also stated numerous times that I don't see any difference between the two parties. They both answer to the same class of people.

As far as paying for the proper equipment, they can get that money from all the millions Halliburtin is ripping off the US taxpayer. If the Oversight Committee would do its f_cking job instead of looking the other way or sweeping things under the carpet or continually giving contracts to a firm that rips off the government just because they got ties to the VP, we would have the money.

Get the f_cking money anywhere but from the VA.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
Any party that starts doing some pretty f_cked things, deserves a bashing. They have it coming. They bring a lot of sh!t on themselves. As I've said in my previous posts (in this thread), I'm not letting the Democrats off the hook either. I have also stated numerous times that I don't see any difference between the two parties. They both answer to the same class of people.

As far as paying for the proper equipment, they can get that money from all the millions Halliburtin is ripping off the US taxpayer. If the Oversight Committee would do its f_cking job instead of looking the other way or sweeping things under the carpet or continually giving contracts to a firm that rips off the government just because they got ties to the VP, we would have the money.

Get the f_cking money anywhere but from the VA.


Again, you are falling in league with a Political Party's agenda. Haliburton is not the only government contract that eats away at our funding....

1 - The Marine Corps used to control and maintain our own computer Internet systems. Because the Navy could not get their sytems together...they contracted out to a company called NMCI. Because the Marine Corps is "Department of the Navy," this contract bled into our world. Now everytime a unit goes to the field and individuals take their laptops to connect to the field system, it costs us $350.00 dollars a computer, because the contract demands that we pay everytime we move the connection from their sytem to ours. What it cost us before this contract......$0.00. Further, we are unable to aid anybody that is having a computer problem, because of the contract. Initially, we were to lose this ability in the field also, because the contract called for NMCI support in the field. What made that go away was that NMCI didn't want to pay their employees to have to deploy with us.

2 - The Blackberries that I have in my inventory cost us cheaper to initially buy, but when one needs replaced it costs us $950.00 each where a civillian that walks into Verizon can buy it for $480.00. We are constantly in the field and civillian gear is easily broken. We pay this extra amount, because we are "receiving a special attention fee," but in reality it is simply that the contract demands more money. My "special attention" is an operator that answers, "Government Contract Support" when I call to get one serviced.

3 - The new tan Flak jackets we received just prior to the 2003 invasion allowed us to insert SAPI or Ballistic Plates in them. Our vital organs (except for kidneys) are not only shrapnel protected, now we are bullet proof. The Government Contract payed the company that makes our Flak Jacket and requested as much to made as possible. The SAPI Plates were made by another company, thus an entirely different contract. This company was also asked to churn out as many as possible in a fast fashion - they did not comply. Since Marines and soldiers come in different sizes, so do our Flak jackets and thus would our SAPI Plates. After a couple years, the seams in many of the Flak Jacket pockets were pulling apart, because the SAPI Plates were just a little to big to easily fit inside the pockets. We crammed them in for a very snug fit. This wasn't detrminental to the service of the Jacket, but the government demanded that the company fix this problem for future jackets. What was found out was that because the company was asked to make as many as possible as fast as possible, they cut corners. Of course this didn't matter to them since the contract demanded expedient turn around. The price per Flak Jacket went up and even though the existing Jackets were recalled (Mine was among the stock numbers), the Government payed a special fee to have them destroyed or recycled through the company, because this company wouldn't simply repair them for us.

4 - One of the reasons that fratricide is no where near a big consideration like it was during the Gulf War is GLINT Tape. Glint Tape comes in a small roll about the size of a roll of Duct Tape. This tape appears yellowish during the day and is unseen at night by the naked eye. However, to the pilots over head who are looking down on a desert floor, they see hundreds of little pieces of tape conducting missions. Each individual gets three or four little square inch pieces to place on his shoulders and helmet. The reason they get so little is because each roll cost just shy of $900.00 each, because this is what the lowest civilian bidder could do for us. How much does a roll of Duct Tape cost?

This is just four quick "off the top of my head" examples. There are hundreds of Government contracts where we are raped from our funds by civillian companies. Like I said before, when we are deployed, we frequently get better and cheaper support from the local communities. Haliburton receives attention only because of the war and because the Democratic Party can throw it in the public's vision for their own political agendas. Haliburton has been working with the military for a long time. I believe since '92? There is far worse going on with regards to Government Contracts than just Haliburton.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
Again, you are falling in league with a Political Party's agenda. Haliburton is not the only government contract that eats away at our funding....

1 - The Marine Corps used to control and maintain our own computer Internet systems. Because the Navy could not get their sytems together...they contracted out to a company called NMCI. Because the Marine Corps is "Department of the Navy," this contract bled into our world. Now everytime a unit goes to the field and individuals take their laptops to connect to the field system, it costs us $350.00 dollars a computer, because the contract demands that we pay everytime we move the connection from their sytem to ours. What it cost us before this contract......$0.00. Further, we are unable to aid anybody that is having a computer problem, because of the contract. Initially, we were to lose this ability in the field also, because the contract called for NMCI support in the field. What made that go away was that NMCI didn't want to pay their employees to have to deploy with us.

2 - The Blackberries that I have in my inventory cost us cheaper to initially buy, but when one needs replaced it costs us $950.00 each where a civillian that walks into Verizon can buy it for $480.00. We are constantly in the field and civillian gear is easily broken. We pay this extra amount, because we are "receiving a special attention fee," but in reality it is simply that the contract demands more money. My "special attention" is an operator that answers, "Government Contract Support" when I call to get one serviced.

3 - The new tan Flak jackets we received just prior to the 2003 invasion allowed us to insert SAPI or Ballistic Plates in them. Our vital organs (except for kidneys) are not only shrapnel protected, now we are bullet proof. The Government Contract payed the company that makes our Flak Jacket and requested as much to made as possible. The SAPI Plates were made by another company, thus an entirely different contract. This company was also asked to churn out as many as possible in a fast fashion - they did not comply. Since Marines and soldiers come in different sizes, so do our Flak jackets and thus would our SAPI Plates. After a couple years, the seams in many of the Flak Jacket pockets were pulling apart, because the SAPI Plates were just a little to big to easily fit inside the pockets. We crammed them in for a very snug fit. This wasn't detrminental to the service of the Jacket, but the government demanded that the company fix this problem for future jackets. What was found out was that because the company was asked to make as many as possible as fast as possible, they cut corners. Of course this didn't matter to them since the contract demanded expedient turn around. The price per Flak Jacket went up and even though the existing Jackets were recalled (Mine was among the stock numbers), the Government payed a special fee to have them destroyed or recycled through the company, because this company wouldn't simply repair them for us.

4 - One of the reasons that fratricide is no where near a big consideration like it was during the Gulf War is GLINT Tape. Glint Tape comes in a small roll about the size of a roll of Duct Tape. This tape appears yellowish during the day and is unseen at night by the naked eye. However, to the pilots over head who are looking down on a desert floor, they see hundreds of little pieces of tape conducting missions. Each individual gets three or four little square inch pieces to place on his shoulders and helmet. The reason they get so little is because each roll cost just shy of $900.00 each, because this is what the lowest civilian bidder could do for us. How much does a roll of Duct Tape cost?

This is just four quick "off the top of my head" examples. There are hundreds of Government contracts where we are raped from our funds by civillian companies. Like I said before, when we are deployed, we frequently get better and cheaper support from the local communities. Haliburton receives attention only because of the war and because the Democratic Party can throw it in the public's vision for their own political agendas. Haliburton has been working with the military for a long time. I believe since '92? There is far worse going on with regards to Government Contracts than just Haliburton.
I used Haliburton as an example because they are one of the biggest abusers along with KBR. But in no way am I saying they are the only abusers. There is a long list of vultures that are trying to capitolize on this war. I don't have so much of a problem if they would give the soldiers what they need. Basically, if they would do their job. What I do have a problem with is when they take my tax dollars and do not provide the goods and services they are contracually obligated to provide. That's what gets me hot.

Another thing that I am finding out is a lot of these reported mercy killings by American soldiers on innocent Iraqis are actually being done by contract civilian security forces. And by doing so are inevitably giving the military an undeserved bad name in these cases. And its just another example of my god-damn tax dollars not going to what was intended.

But aside from that, I don't have a problem with anything you stated in your last post. I would hope they get everything they need to do their job and protect themselves and the Iraqi citizens around them. But I draw the line when it comes to the VA. I was contracted to upgrade the Fire Alarm system at the VA in Long Beach. Since I am an Electrical Designer, I had to walk the entire facility and got to know some ins and outs. I found out they care very much about taking care of veterans injured in war. However, when I see Republicans and kiss-ass Democrats starting wars, then cutting funding for the VA, my blood starts to boil big-time.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
I used Haliburton as an example because they are one of the biggest abusers along with KBR. But in no way am I saying they are the only abusers. There is a long list of vultures that are trying to capitolize on this war. I don't have so much of a problem if they would give the soldiers what they need. Basically, if they would do their job. What I do have a problem with is when they take my tax dollars and do not provide the goods and services they are contracually obligated to provide. That's what gets me hot.

This is what gets all of us hot. The contracts are made, but the civillian companies cut every corner imaginable to produce the cheapest product while pocketing the rest. It always happens and nobody "checks" it. My former Father-in-Law just retired from the Pentagon. He was an accountant. They would frequently fly to the bases and do the numbers and deal with the contractors and compile figures and blah blah. The waste is astronomical. Our great and powerful Government and Military is very much at the mercy of civillian contractors and companies. The lowest bidder is always expensive. Welcome to "Free Enterprise." I wear a uniform that protects that...humouresly and tragically Ironic.

Billo_Really said:
Another thing that I am finding out is a lot of these reported mercy killings by American soldiers on innocent Iraqis are actually being done by contract civilian security forces. And by doing so are inevitably giving the military an undeserved bad name in these cases. And its just another example of my god-damn tax dollars not going to what was intended.

You know, I have stated this and more to you over and over in the past, but all I got from you is a need for a link to prove myself correct. The contracted security personnel are always giving us trouble and we are constantly having to rescue them. They are not trained and they act it. Much like the National Guard and "non-combatives" within the Army, they breath a sigh of relief when we are operating in their areas, but when we are not, they constantly screw up.

Like I've said before...The Global left does not speak for those of us who wore or wear our country’s uniform. And they never will. Before the Americans discovered us as a useful tool, we were all bullies or baby killers from an Oliver Stone fantasy to them. And they loved it because it absolved them of all responsibility to serve their country. Now they portray us as helpless victims of American imperialism (although they showed their true colors during the Abu Ghraib affair, when they were delighted to claim that the actions of a handful of renegades exemplified the behavior of our entire military). These people are all too happy to bash the military and our politicians use that and they ride it for all its worth. If it will garnish votes, they will demand that needless investigation. If it will rally votes, they will parade every single act across the sea as a "military" action and lump us in everytime.

Incidentally, remember when the Brits raided that prison to break out their Royal Marines? For about a month there was written circulation in Iraq in local newspapers and through Radical influence that gave this incident to the glory of American soldiers. We are the scapegoat everywhere and in our own country, we are scapegoats to our politicians. This is the life.

Billo_Really said:
But aside from that, I don't have a problem with anything you stated in your last post. I would hope they get everything they need to do their job and protect themselves and the Iraqi citizens around them. But I draw the line when it comes to the VA. I was contracted to upgrade the Fire Alarm system at the VA in Long Beach. Since I am an Electrical Designer, I had to walk the entire facility and got to know some ins and outs. I found out they care very much about taking care of veterans injured in war. However, when I see Republicans and kiss-ass Democrats starting wars, then cutting funding for the VA, my blood starts to boil big-time.


Well, you don't want to hear this and I know it, but despite mundane details and considering the inevitable stumbles that come when a mass of upgraded equipment on every level have been flying at us, this administration has taken care of us. Many things get blown out of proportion and if we were in more of a private setting, I would let fly my frustrations with another branch that has a lot to do with that.

As far as the VA, I don't know what goes on inside our political chambers why some laws are passed and others aren't and why some budgets are approved and some are cut. When many were in an uproar over loss of pay a couple years ago in the military, because of some Capital Hill business, they weren't realizing the bigger picture and rival politicians didn't even care. Where other areas of our checks were cut, other areas were raised to balance it. In the end, we actually are payed better now than what we were a few years ago. Everyone believes that our Veterans should be taken care of and everyone knows that the children of politicians never have to deal with their actions. But, I'm sure they aren't arbritrarily out to kick our veteran's asses. I wouldn't go as far as to believe that Clinton was out to maliciously screw us and I won't believe it for the Republicans. Whatever is going on with this VA thing, it will sort itself out, but it will never be what we would like to see. Everyone is all about taking care of the military until they start talking about taxes or cutting other fundings.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
Everyone is all about taking care of the military until they start talking about taxes or cutting other fundings.
I hear what your saying. I just don't think the guys and girls coming home are treated as well as they should be. When you think of everything they give, everything they put on the line, the possible consequences and worst case scenario's, they should receive the world when they get back.

There are former GI's on this very board that are having trouble getting benefits. Everybody hates him, but that new guy ptsdkid, mentioned that it took almost a year for him to receive benefits. That's not right.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
I hear what your saying. I just don't think the guys and girls coming home are treated as well as they should be. When you think of everything they give, everything they put on the line, the possible consequences and worst case scenario's, they should receive the world when they get back.

There are former GI's on this very board that are having trouble getting benefits. Everybody hates him, but that new guy ptsdkid, mentioned that it took almost a year for him to receive benefits. That's not right.


They will never be treated as they deserve. That is our world. The attitude by many is that "they volunteer and therefore deserve what they get, because they knew what they were getting themselves into."

Benefits take time. The bureaucracy that screwed up things for us with Katrina is the same type of bureaucracy that veterans have to go through for benefits. There are so many channels involved and so many steps and some places are slower or faster than others. Once we leave military service, it is hard to get what we rate. Veterans located near military bases are usually in a better and much easier situation. It's as simple as going to the Base Hospital. For those that are not...it can be difficult. The VA system has never been what it should be. "aps" would have a great deal more to say on this than me.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Oh boy, I get to go through my favorite spiel again.....

I just got out of the Air Force a few months ago, and I never supported the war. My husband was in the Army and did two rotations in Iraq, and he didn't support the war. Does this mean that we didn't support ourselves? Uh....no.

And as far as soldiers getting paid more, that's an iffy situation. Soldiers that are still in the barracks/dorms, absolutely. I brought home about $800 a month while in the dorms.....but once I got married and moved off base, I got a considerable raise because of BAS and BAH. Since my husband and I were in different branches, we both received the single rate BAH. So for the last year of our enlistments, with me as an E-4 and him as an E-5, we were bringing home about $4,000 a month. Then again, BAH is also dependent upon the cost of living of where you're stationed.

With the 2006 pay increase, an E-1 with less than 2 years of service makes $1273.50 a month before taxes. That comes out to about $7.95 an hour if you base it off of a 40 hour work week, with four weeks in a month. An O-1 with less than 2 years of service makes $2416.20 a month before taxes, which comes out to $15.10 an hour based upon the same factors. When you look at it that way, absolutely the enlisted folks need a raise. But, some will argue that they DO get raises, every year in fact. Is it enough of a raise? Not really, but though a lot of people will complain that we don't pay our troops enough, those same people are the ones who don't want to pay higher taxes to provide the troops with those pay raises.

To Stace: I am glad that people still know how to take what other people say out of context, but since I am a nice person who respects soldiers I won't take anything out of Stace's text :mrgreen: and before you ask how you took what I said out of context I will show you. What I posted is old and was in responce to a comment that was posted a little less than a year ago by Billo Really(a year ago meaning more than just one month). That responce was to point out to Billo that he was making a Generalized blanketed statement which basically said that all "Republicans DO NOT Support Our Troops" hence the title of the thread, and I was saying that he didn't have any proof of that, and just what was his reasoning to support that all republicans were not supporting American troops? So you see I don't see how what you quoted me on has to do with the context of all republicans disrespecting American soldiers? I am glad to see that someone agrees with me that our soldiers should be paid more.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
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:
To Stace: I am glad that people still know how to take what other people say out of context, but since I am a nice person who respects soldiers I won't take anything out of Stace's text and before you ask how you took what I said out of context I will show you. What I posted is old and was in responce to a comment that was posted a little less than a year ago by Billo Really(a year ago meaning more than just one month). That responce was to point out to Billo that he was making a Generalized blanketed statement which basically said that all "Republicans DO NOT Support Our Troops" hence the title of the thread, and I was saying that he didn't have any proof of that, and just what was his reasoning to support that all republicans were not supporting American troops? So you see I don't see how what you quoted me on has to do with the context of all republicans disrespecting American soldiers? I am glad to see that someone agrees with me that our soldiers should be paid more.
You're pretty good yourself about taking things out of context. A blanket statement would be "Republicans do not support troops at all". That's a blanket generalization. The point I'm trying to make with this thread is in response to all these god-damn republicans that accuse everybody that is not for this war of not supporting the troops. So what I'm basically saying, is the old "those who are without sin cast the first stone" arguement. A lot of Republicans make a big deal about supporting the troops while at the same time they are reducing funding to the VA. You don't go start two wars and then reduce a soldiers ability to heal. And you especially do not throw this "support troop" mantra in other peoples faces when you're doing this kind of sh!t.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
From that last post you basically told me that you have absolutely zero idea of what "blanket Statement" means. So now I will explain to you what a blanket statement is because you either don't know it, or you won't acknowledge that you have. A blanket statement boys and girls is a statement that over generalizes. So the answer is yes you have made a very foolish mistake by saying and if you don't believe me because I know you won't, you can go up to the top of this thread and look at the topic that you wrote Billo, and ask yourself these questions: 1. Does that statement cover all republicans A: Yes, it does because it says "Republicans" with an s at the end, and it doesn't say this one Republican I know really well whose name is Jeff. 2. Does your title include another large group of people whom you are over generalizing A: Yes, The fact that you said "troops" instead of a soldier means that you are talking about all American troops. The "at all" part that you added on is just some pathetic attempt to save yourself because you know that you did make a over generalized statement also known as a "Blanket Statement." Now I am going to give you an example of a statement being "out of context" is:
all these god-damn republicans that accuse everybody
not only is this pulled of context to convey a picture that makes you sound really insulting, but that quote is also a "blanked statement" by the fact that you said RepublicanS and everybody. when I put it back it makes the little bit of sense that your ill-behaved logic usually does in this quote:
You're pretty good yourself about taking things out of context. A blanket statement would be "Republicans do not support troops at all". That's a blanket generalization. The point I'm trying to make with this thread is in response to all these god-damn republicans that accuse everybody that is not for this war of not supporting the troops. So what I'm basically saying, is the old "those who are without sin cast the first stone" argument. A lot of Republicans make a big deal about supporting the troops while at the same time they are reducing funding to the VA. You don't go start two wars and then reduce a soldiers ability to heal. And you especially do not throw this "support troop" mantra in other peoples faces when you're doing this kind of sh!t.
So in conclusion NO I didn't actually take anything "out of context" because I quoted her entire reply. and if you actually read this far I would like to know what Factual evidence or Proof that "they" who you refer to as "Republicans" are doing to take funding away from the VA? By the way I pulled this out of context only as an example to show what happens when you take a quote or sentence out of context.
all these god-damn republicans that accuse everybody
That was just my little disclaimer.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
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:
From that last post you basically told me that you have absolutely zero idea of what "blanket Statement" means. So now I will explain to you what a blanket statement is because you either don't know it, or you won't acknowledge that you have. A blanket statement boys and girls is a statement that over generalizes. So the answer is yes you have made a very foolish mistake by saying and if you don't believe me because I know you won't, you can go up to the top of this thread and look at the topic that you wrote Billo, and ask yourself these questions: 1. Does that statement cover all republicans A: Yes, it does because it says "Republicans" with an s at the end, and it doesn't say this one Republican I know really well whose name is Jeff. 2. Does your title include another large group of people whom you are over generalizing A: Yes, The fact that you said "troops" instead of a soldier means that you are talking about all American troops. The "at all" part that you added on is just some pathetic attempt to save yourself because you know that you did make a over generalized statement also known as a "Blanket Statement." Now I am going to give you an example of a statement being "out of context" is:
Listen Jack, a convesation is not some art piece in a museum that you stand there and extract what you want out of it. In order to properly respond, you have to understand the point I'm making. Because if you do not do this one simple thing before shooting your god-damn mouth off, then you don't know what your talking about. So I will ask you this very simple question, junior, what is my point?
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hmph. If I have anything to say, the Republicans, as well as any war supporter, do not support the troops. How do we support the troops? Step one: bring them out of that miserable sandbox. Step two: bring them out of the rest of the world that doesn't belong to us. Step three: make America a neutral country like the Founding Fathers intended. Step four: abolish the offensive military and replace it with a defensive volunteer militia.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Listen Jack, a convesation is not some art piece in a museum that you stand there and extract what you want out of it. In order to properly respond, you have to understand the point I'm making. Because if you do not do this one simple thing before shooting your god-damn mouth off, then you don't know what your talking about. So I will ask you this very simple question, junior, what is my point?

Wow, did you read and or understand anything I had written in my last response? By the way in a civilized conversation the time when one of the conversationalists begin to use profanity on the opposition, and throws a child like temper tantrum that person is declared the loser. Also I wonder why you didn't or couldn't answer my little question of finding proof that all republicans are taking money away from the VA? Maybe thats just the question you dodged, because you knew that you couldn't answer it, because thats the point where you say to yourself gee I really don't have anything to back that up with so I'll just pretend that I never saw that in the first place.:3oops: If you are caught wrong you should just admit it. Yes I have done it myself, because you really can't win all arguments. All I basically said to do in my last post was for you or anyone who is reading this to go up to the title of this post read it, and think about what it means, and how vague and over generalized it is.

Hmph. If I have anything to say, the Republicans, as well as any war supporter, do not support the troops. How do we support the troops? Step one: bring them out of that miserable sandbox. Step two: bring them out of the rest of the world that doesn't belong to us. Step three: make America a neutral country like the Founding Fathers intended. Step four: abolish the offensive military and replace it with a defensive volunteer militia.

This statement above me is actually right! The founding fathers did believe in isolationism, but George Washington doesn't live in our times. So the problems of the future will require new and inventive solutions. Its fine to believe that bringing our soldiers back is your way to support them, because this is America and you can believe what you want. All I am saying is that I believe that sending them to Iraq will be doing good because they have been securing Iraqis a less fear filled life in the future, and at the same time do their job to be soldiers.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
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:
From that last post you basically told me that you have absolutely zero idea of what "blanket Statement" means.
No, this is you talking to yourself and hoping that is what I told you. I will tell you what I tell you. You don't f_cking tell me what I tell you. Got it?

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
So now I will explain to you what a blanket statement is because you either don't know it, or you won't acknowledge that you have.
You ain't going to explain sh!t. What your doing is going through your little pre-written sermon you got going around in your little head.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
A blanket statement boys and girls is a statement that over generalizes.
Let me know when your out of kindergarden.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
So the answer is yes you have made a very foolish mistake by saying and if you don't believe me because I know you won't, you can go up to the top of this thread and look at the topic that you wrote Billo,
Wrong again. I don't need to go anywhere. I know what I wrote. I also know you do not know what I wrote. Because you keep trying to morph it into something else.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
and ask yourself these questions: 1. Does that statement cover all republicans A: Yes, it does because it says "Republicans" with an s at the end, and it doesn't say this one Republican I know really well whose name is Jeff. 2. Does your title include another large group of people whom you are over generalizing A: Yes, The fact that you said "troops" instead of a soldier means that you are talking about all American troops. The "at all" part that you added on is just some pathetic attempt to save yourself because you know that you did make a over generalized statement also known as a "Blanket Statement."
The problem, Einstein, is that your trying to make the title the entire point of the thread. When in reality, it is just a hook to get the reader in. The title is not the point. And the only thing that is pathetic, is seeing you try to make it that.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
Now I am going to give you an example of a statement being "out of context" is:
Your pretty f_cking condenscending. Good. Keep it up. Maybe one day you might get me to bring my A-game.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
not only is this pulled of context to convey a picture that makes you sound really insulting, but that quote is also a "blanked statement" by the fact that you said RepublicanS and everybody.
Hey, if your insulted, that's your problem, not mine. You choose your own emotions. At least man-up to that.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
when I put it back it makes the little bit of sense that your ill-behaved logic
This is the part where your arguement loses steam.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
So in conclusion NO I didn't actually take anything "out of context"
How convenient.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
because I quoted her entire reply. and if you actually read this far I would like to know what Factual evidence or Proof that "they" who you refer to as "Republicans" are doing to take funding away from the VA?
I did so in my first post. If that's not good enough, Google it. It's a matter of public record. I'm not going to play your little bullshit source game. I'm not going to wrap the link in a pretty little box with a big f_cking bow on it for you.

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
By the way I pulled this out of context only as an example to show what happens when you take a quote or sentence out of context.
Talk to the hand...

Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
That was just my little disclaimer.
Very little.
__________________
Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
I'd rather be Right than "Politicaly Correct"
Right now, you're neither.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
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:
Wow, did you read and or understand anything I had written in my last response? By the way in a civilized conversation the time when one of the conversationalists begin to use profanity on the opposition, and throws a child like temper tantrum that person is declared the loser. Also I wonder why you didn't or couldn't answer my little question of finding proof that all republicans are taking money away from the VA? Maybe thats just the question you dodged, because you knew that you couldn't answer it, because thats the point where you say to yourself gee I really don't have anything to back that up with so I'll just pretend that I never saw that in the first place. If you are caught wrong you should just admit it. Yes I have done it myself, because you really can't win all arguments. All I basically said to do in my last post was for you or anyone who is reading this to go up to the title of this post read it, and think about what it means, and how vague and over generalized it is.
I'll ask you again, what is my point? If you don't know, everything you say from that point on, is bullshit!
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Wow all those quotes out of context still not getting it are you? By the way if you keep this up this is what is going to happen to you, and maybe it already has. You blowing up on people will lead them to not want to listen to you or read what you have to say because you can't control yourself like an adult. Hence, you are only going to give yourself a bad rap and believe it or not I actually do care about your future on this forum, because I think that when you are on the ball you do have valid points to make. I am not trying to make a source game when I make a statement about a group of people or an event, I ask myself if someone doesn't believe this do I have a source to re-enforce my statement? And is this source not only credible, but is it one that they will personally accept? So if you are going to be in an on-line debate you should be ready to defend what you say, and not just run around making statements that you will have to type to death to beat into another debater's head.

I would say that your original point was that both Democrats and Republicans are not supporting the soldiers and then you explained that the Republican party didn't care about the soldiers when they came back. You also blamed the democrats for bowing down to republicans and not fighting the republicans.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
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:
Wow all those quotes out of context still not getting it are you? By the way if you keep this up this is what is going to happen to you, and maybe it already has. You blowing up on people will lead them to not want to listen to you or read what you have to say because you can't control yourself like an adult. Hence, you are only going to give yourself a bad rap and believe it or not I actually do care about your future on this forum, because I think that when you are on the ball you do have valid points to make. I am not trying to make a source game when I make a statement about a group of people or an event, I ask myself if someone doesn't believe this do I have a source to re-enforce my statement? And is this source not only credible, but is it one that they will personally accept? So if you are going to be in an on-line debate you should be ready to defend what you say, and not just run around making statements that you will have to type to death to beat into another debater's head.
I'm not blowing up, this is my Disneyland. We are not going to get anywhere until you tell me what my point is, back to me, to my satisfaction. It all starts with that. If you are going to respond to an assertion, you have to know what that assertion is. When I am satisfied you know my point, I will answer all your questions with respect and diplomacy.

Just realize that a lot of this is your reaction to what I am saying. You are choosing these reactions. For my part, I will admit I'm no angel and can be a little curt sometimes. Your last post is encouraging for the simple fact that you are talking to me and not at me. I realize I'm not the easiest person to talk to at times.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Messerschmitt said:
Wow all those quotes out of context still not getting it are you? By the way if you keep this up this is what is going to happen to you, and maybe it already has. You blowing up on people will lead them to not want to listen to you or read what you have to say because you can't control yourself like an adult. Hence, you are only going to give yourself a bad rap and believe it or not I actually do care about your future on this forum, because I think that when you are on the ball you do have valid points to make. I am not trying to make a source game when I make a statement about a group of people or an event, I ask myself if someone doesn't believe this do I have a source to re-enforce my statement? And is this source not only credible, but is it one that they will personally accept? So if you are going to be in an on-line debate you should be ready to defend what you say, and not just run around making statements that you will have to type to death to beat into another debater's head.

I would say that your original point was that both Democrats and Republicans are not supporting the soldiers and then you explained that the Republican party didn't care about the soldiers when they came back. You also blamed the democrats for bowing down to republicans and not fighting the republicans.

Yes, I suppose it is simply a pre-biased notion that Democrats care about people and Republicans don't.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
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
I would say that your original point was that both Democrats and Republicans are not supporting the soldiers and then you explained that the Republican party didn't care about the soldiers when they came back. You also blamed the democrats for bowing down to republicans and not fighting the republicans.
This isn't exactly it, but its kinda in that direction. A little brief history first. I don't see any difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They both answer to the same class of people. For me, they are flip sides of the same coin. You know as well as I do all the rhetoric going around (ie, attacks on Murtha, attacks on Bush, is the war legal, is it illegal) even on this board are threads and signitures that say "You cannot support troops if you do not support their mission". Stuff like that.

This thread is in response to those Republicans (not saying all) that try to make out that anyone that is against this war does not support the troops. My biggest pet peeve is hypocrisy. It is a matter of public record how Congress votes on certain bills and resolutions. And there is also a lot of information on the net about this subject. It is not hard to find. I would hope that you do not believe me but go find out through your own sources what your truth is on this matter. That would be the best thing I could suggest. Don't take my word for it but find out for yourself.

I am against this war, but do not feel the GI's are treated as well as they should be when they get back. I am a baby boomer, so I still remember the crap Vietnam Vets had to put up with when they came home so it is kind of a sensitive subject with me.

The fact of the matter is, both Dems and Reps are voting to reduce VA spending. It is getting late and I am tired. I will post some links tomorrow. If you research any of my posts (other than the ones in the basement), you will see that I go out of my way to provide links to show that I don't sit around and just make this stuff up.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
So it repeats. Now that I have told what I thought the point was, on the first page is where I began to disagree with what you said. I think it was Tatracide who said that the examples of republicans disrespecting vets was from a source that no one agreed that was believable, because it was super left. It was from: The Nation. I am saying still that no true patriot would intentionally do anything to disrespect a person from the military who risks their live so that you can be free. The people who are disrespecting any soldier should have shame.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
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
So it repeats. Now that I have told what I thought the point was, on the first page is where I began to disagree with what you said. I think it was Tatracide who said that the examples of republicans disrespecting vets was from a source that no one agreed that was believable, because it was super left. It was from: The Nation. I am saying still that no true patriot would intentionally do anything to disrespect a person from the military who risks their live so that you can be free. The people who are disrespecting any soldier should have shame.
This is what I mean about the source game. It doesn't matter where the assertion comes from to justify its validity. That's ludicrous. That's not logical. If Pol Pot said the earth was round, does that mean it is flat? If a Priest said I have a nice boy, does that mean he did my kid?

I have stated several times it is a matter of public record how they vote. I also gave the particular bill they voted on. Go to a government website and count the votes before accusing me of bullshit. To simply say I didn't provide evidence because it came from the Nation, is not a valid rebuttal.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Wo WO wo I think you misunderstood. I was just talking about what happened on the first page of this thread. I wasn't talking about the Nation like a nation of people. It is a web site where tetracide found where you had gotten some information to back up your reasons that you explained to me. All I was talking about was what happend of the first page of this thread.
I have no Idea what this is about "If Pol Pot said the earth was round, does that mean it is flat? If a Priest said I have a nice boy, does that mean he did my kid?" If I understand correctally then you said that it dosen't matter where your information comes from? Then I would say Yes, it does matter where you get your information from.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
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
Wo WO wo I think you misunderstood. I was just talking about what happened on the first page of this thread. I wasn't talking about the Nation like a nation of people. It is a web site where tetracide found where you had gotten some information to back up your reasons that you explained to me. All I was talking about was what happend of the first page of this thread.
I was talking about that very same website also. But for tetracide to say the information is "bogus" simply because it comes from that website is a fallacy of logic. You don't like my source. Therefore, the assertion from the source is wrong? Doesn't make sense. I know you have to consider the source to a point, but you don't draw your conclusion soley on that information.

Originally Posted by Messerschmitt
I have no Idea what this is about "If Pol Pot said the earth was round, does that mean it is flat? If a Priest said I have a nice boy, does that mean he did my kid?" If I understand correctally then you said that it dosen't matter where your information comes from? Then I would say Yes, it does matter where you get your information from.
To think that the authenticity of an assertion rides on the fact as to whether it comes from a reader approved source is a joke. If this is what you believe, I am not going to argue that. I do not argue with people's beliefs. You have every right to believe whatever you want too. And I fully support you in that.

I want to bring closure to this debate. So I am offering another link for reader approval.

Murray Fights for Mandatory Funding
for Veterans Health Care,

Republicans Say No

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Today, Senate Republicans defeated an effort to provide mandatory funding for veterans health care. The amendment, co-sponsored by Senator Patty Murray and led by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, would provide a 30 percent increase in funding for FY2005 and in subsequent years assure adequate funding levels to meet the needs of veterans in the system and inflation. Under the Daschle proposal, all vets would have full quality health care.

Following the vote, Senator Murray said:

"Today, we had an outstanding opportunity to make a landmark commitment to the veterans who've served us so well. Our veterans deserve health care they can count on, and we should provide mandatory funding to the VA so that veterans will know that health care will be there forever.

"A few weeks ago we learned the Bush Administration, if reelected, plans to slash the VA budget. And today, in that same spirit, Republicans said no to veterans. Our veterans deserve more, and from providing health care to family assistance to keeping VA facilities open in Washington state, I will continue to fight for them."

Included below is a summary of the amendment:

Daschle Veterans Health Amendment: Ensures Access to VA Prescription & Health Services for All Veterans

The amendment by Senator Tom Daschle would ensure that VA prescription drugs and health services are available to all veterans. The amendment sets up a new full-funding process, with an opportunity for fast-track Congressional review after two years' operation.

The amendment is supported by the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, comprised of all leading veterans' organizations.

VA FUNDING HAS FALLEN BEHIND DEMAND & HEALTH INFLATION

The VA's enrolled population has grown 134 percent since 1996, while appropriations have grown 44 percent - one-third as fast. When health care inflation is taken into account, it is even more obvious that VA funding has failed to keep pace with changing needs.

The President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans - created by President Bush through Executive Order 13214 - reported "a significant mismatch in VA between demand and available funding."

THE BUSH STRATEGY: LESS CARE, RISING COSTS, MORE RESTRICTIONS

The Bush Administration's response has been a policy it calls "demand management," which means any and all steps to restrict and reduce the number of veterans treated at the VA. This has included lengthy waiting lists for hundreds of thousands of veterans, a six-fold increase in out-of-pocket payments by veterans since President Bush took office, and restrictions on enrollment.

MANY AGREE THAT FULL FUNDING IS NEEDED

The amendment would remove veterans health care from the annual politics of the appropriations cycle. Instead, veterans health care would be funded like other vital programs - including military retirement, Social Security, and Medicare. Such an approach has been endorsed by:

President Bush's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans in its May 2003 final report.

Bi-partisan leadership of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in a Feb. 25, 2004, letter.

The Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, comprised of the American Legion, AMVETS, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Vietnam Veterans of America.
THE FULL-FUNDING MECHANISM

The amendment would provide the Veterans Health Administration with funding from two sources: First, an annual discretionary amount, which would remain unchanged from year to year, locked in at the funding level of Fiscal Year 2004. And second, an annual sum of mandatory funds. This amount would adjust each year to reflect changes in demand from veterans and the rate of health care inflation.

The amendment also mandates a review of the formula and the overall funding process after two years, with fast-track procedures for consideration of changes.

AMOUNT OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED TO VETERANS BY THIS AMENDMENT

CBO predicts that a reliable funding stream would allow 3 million more veterans to receive pharmaceuticals and health services from the VA, a 40% increase over current policies. CBO says the total cost of this additional health care would be $100 billion over 5 years and $300 billion over 10 years. In the final year, treating the additional 3 million veterans would cost an additional $11 million, a cost of less than $3,700 per enrollee.

VA IS A COST-EFFECTIVE PROGRAM FOR TREATING VETERANS

Despite severe inflationary pressures affecting public and private health programs, VA's per-patient expenditures have declined consistently for more than a decade, to just over $4,000 in FY03. VA is a leader in many cost-containment categories, most notably acquisition of pharmaceuticals. Providing more health care through the VA will reduce expenditures in other programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.


http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=223093

This wasn't that hard to find. It kind of p!sses me off that people demand to be spoon fed information.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For a job as important as the military, people should be compensated better than they are.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Axismaster said:
For a job as important as the military, people should be compensated better than they are.
Their is a $40,000 enlistment bonus? Or get a degree then train to become an officer, then make more than that a year! :mrgreen:
 
Top Bottom