Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And only while they are whole and still useful to the military. Once their usefulness is gone and they need long term care or services or help finding a job, the Republicans are happy to leave them to fend for themselves.
Romney is a case in point. He has floated the idea of privatizing the VA. Essentially, he would send our vets out with a voucher try to get care from private insurance companies. It's one of his ideas to cut government spending. Can't touch the bloated military budget because that's where all his wealthy contractor friends make their billions, but it's perfectly acceptable to cut the benefits of those who serve.
Is that actually true?
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was established as a Cabinet-level position on March 15, 1989. PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush hailed the creation of the new department saying, "There is only one place for the veterans of America, in the Cabinet Room, at the table with the President of the United States of America." In their major reform period of 1995–2000, the VHA implemented universal primary care, closed 55% of their acute care hospital beds, increased patients treated by 24%, had a 48% increase in ambulatory care visits and decreased staffing by 12%. By 2000, the VHA had 10,000 fewer employees than in 1995 and a 104% increase in patients treated since 1995, and had managed to maintain the same cost per patient-day, while all other facilities' costs had risen over 30% to 40% during the same time frame.
Absolutely not. Trolling is for children and liberal freaks. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.
Obama has already exceeded the casualty rate in Iraq. He has also far exceeded the casualty rate of the first Gulf War in 1991. Obama's casualty rate compares closer to Vietnam than any conflict we have had since.
Why do you think he gave the military 18 different rules of engagement to follow, and created a new medal for "Courageous Restraint" (a.k.a. the "Coward's Medal")? If he could get away with it, Obama would completely disarm the military, line them up against the wall, and let the Taliban kill them all.
How can you manage to be so detached from reality?
How can you possibly be so mind-numbingly stupid as to claim that the U.S. deaths under President Obama are "closer to Vietnam than any conflict we have had since"?
And I won't even get into the sheer idiocy of your last paragraph.
I'm surprised you can even look in the mirror without complete revulsion...
So you prefer Presidents to have served, but prefer one who didn't (Reagan) to one who did (Carter).
Demographically speaking, the days of Presidential candidates having served in the military are probably over.
Yes, my preference is for someone who has served, but it is not a mandatory requirement. Someone who has served on active duty understands military protocol and understands military life. As someone who has served, you know as well as I that military life is nothing like anything a civilian can comprehend until they have experienced for it themselves.
Considering that every President since Woodrow Wilson has been involved in multiple foreign conflicts, preferring a President that has actually served in the military is not unreasonable. As far as JFK and LBJ are concerned, that was one aspect of their qualifications I did like. I still would not have voted for either one of them because of their ideology, even if I could have. However, I did vote for Nixon from boot camp.
Considering what Carter did to the military (I served under Carter, Ford, and Nixon), there was no way in hell I would ever vote for him. Like Obama, I just wanted Carter gone and I did not care who his opponent was as long as there was a chance he could beat Carter. My vote was against Carter, not for Reagan in 1980.
How can you manage to be so detached from reality?
How can you possibly be so mind-numbingly stupid as to claim that the U.S. deaths under President Obama are "closer to Vietnam than any conflict we have had since"?
And I won't even get into the sheer idiocy of your last paragraph.
I'm surprised you can even look in the mirror without complete revulsion...
I wanted to address this one here specifically. As we speak, I'm putting the finishing touching on a WOFT packet (application to the Army helicopter flight school, for those who don't know) and I've never had even the slightest feeling that the man I'm ultimately about to sign my life away to for 6 years (minimum) felt "disdain" for my chosen profession.
Wait until after you join, you will find out soon enough, the hard way.
"one of the common attacks or gripes (whichever you want to call it) that those who lean right"
neither are the words, some, a few, very little.
"That those that lean right" implies ALL those that lean right.
You need to be clearer in your accusations.
My mistake. I figured you would have possessed at least the most basic level of common sense required to understand, without me having to spell it out for you, that my statement was not all inclusive. Obviously, I was mistaken, but I should have realized that when you tried to quote me saying a word that never showed up in my post.
Hopefully, you're on the same page as the rest of us now.
My mistake. I figured you would have possessed at least the most basic level of common sense required to understand, without me having to spell it out for you, that my statement was not all inclusive. Obviously, I was mistaken, but I should have realized that when you tried to quote me saying a word that never showed up in my post.
Hopefully, you're on the same page as the rest of us now.
I repeat, when you state, "Those that lean right", means exactly what it says. It implies any and all who leans right. You did NOT exclude any. The statement in itself is not true. Many who lean right or left don't agree 100% ON EVERYTHING. To claim that they do only shows how uninformed you are.
I repeat, when you state, "Those that lean right", means exactly what it says. It implies any and all who leans right. You did NOT exclude any. The statement in itself is not true. Many who lean right or left don't agree 100% ON EVERYTHING. To claim that they do only shows how uninformed you are.
And I repeat, I figured you would have possessed at least the most basic level of common sense required to understand, without me having to spell it out for you, that my statement was not all inclusive. Seeing as how you are the only one to take issue with that, it seems that you're the only one here who didn't pick up on it.
Now, go sit in the corner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
