You need to reread what I wrote and what he wrote. From me, no one is immune to criticism concerning their lack of support for veterans. The fact is excepting WII veterans this nation's actions or lack of action concerning vets has always been shameful! Vets have gotten lip service and not much else. All too often for reasons stated and unstated INDIVIDUALS of every political persuasion have not supported vets, or given them their due. From the treatment of Civil War veterans, through the Spanish American War, WWI, Korea and Vietnam vets the treatment was the same, and to an lesser extent lack of effort and lip service exists to this very day. Just one egregious example from the past, was the actions of General Douglas MacArthur, who led men and officers such as Eisenhower, and Patton to clear out the last remaining veterans peacefully assembled in Washington D.C. They were peacefully seeking redress of grievances with the Federal Government. Not only did General MacArthur use Cavalry with sabers drawn to herd them out of town, but under his orders they burned the encampments thus destroying the vets' last meager possessions.gfost1 wrote:Jeepers, Jim,gatlingun6 wrote:VBshooter maybe in your haste and your passion about supporting combat veterans, you should have slowed down and carefully read what you wrote.
[argument redacted]
Respectfully
Jim
Reasoned debate should never be personal
No lie lasts forever
Mebbe you should have read Spence's post before you criticized him. He didn't mention the political beliefs of America's combat veterans, it was you that drew that distinction.
You appear to be arguing that, since many members of the armed forces came from the political left, the left is therefore immune from criticism regarding their treatment of veterans.
Are you willing to extend the same courtesy to the political right?
Regards,
George
Today what ticks me off is so many people who think a ribbon on the car or a bumper sticker is support for veterans. Considering how difficult it is to get anything done for veterans, I always wonder, in addition to the sticker, how many have written letters, called their Congress person to lobby for veterans. I call those who haven't "cafeteria supporters" they grab the easiest tid bit, like a sticker and move on. Not too long ago a prominent conservative when told so, denied that large numbers of veterans were homeless. When representatives of homeless veterans, including the homeless vets wanted to talk to him he refused.
If this was what Vfbshooters post was all about I would have been the first to congratulate him. Unfortunately the line that set me off was the same ole baloney decrying the lack of support to vets from the so-called lefty liberals. That's hog wash and you know it! Where was the line that excoriated some Republicans for opposing the new GI bill? Where was the line slamming the Bush administration for wanting to increase charges for vets for prescription drugs until they would pay more than even medicare recipients, and for dropping over 200K mostly WWII vets from VA treatment eligibility? VBF Shooter made not the slightest attempt to be evenhanded.
My argument was pretty simple, don't claim to be so concerned about vets as a group when you are not! And clearly he has a test before he gives his support. I don't! My support of ALL veterans is unqualified no matter their political views. And I give credit to anyone who does the same without regard to same. I will not lump Americans into this side, or that side when it comes to vet causes. Faithful and honorable service to the nation is just that faithful and honorable service period. Those who have so served deserve the respect and thanks of all Americans, and whatever a grateful nation can do to assist their reintegration into society. This means when it comes to education, medical assistance, jobs, family support, disability pay, etc. I am in their corner, and INDIVIDUALS who belittle those efforts by trying to smear entire groups have lost me. Nothing in this means I have to support individual veterans or groups when they stray into the purely political arena.
Since the opening and dedication of the WWII Memorial on the Mall, which I initially opposed there (damn am I glad no one listened to me, indeed it does belong on the Mall), when I can identify a veteran and especially a disabled one, if I can do so unobtrusively I always offer may hand and give a quiet thanks for their service. It's a small gesture but many are surprised since there was no ceremonial occasion. The last time was oh about 2 months ago, while waiting in Frankfurt airport to go to Japan, I noticed a small group of Americans who from their baseball caps were obviously 101st Abn Vets who had fought at Bastogne. Even I could figure out the meaning of a Cap inscribed with the word "NUTS" accompanied by a 101st Patch. A very interesting conversation ensued with me mostly listening and them talking. Before I walked up I didn't think Hmmm I wonder, are they conservatives? liberals? Democrats? Republicans? Union Members? Militia members? rich? poor? Etc.? Nope, because thanking them for their service had nothing to do with who they were that day.
Is it ever possible in the general forum to do ever write anything beyond the ever present subliminal Democrat = evil, Liberal = evil, RHINO=evil Real Republican= good, conservative=good, libertarian=better than good? I get that message loud and clear, so why is it repeated over and over in every post. Is there some need to reinforce that message among those who have those beliefs? Clearly you see THOSE people, your fellow Americans, as the enemy which continues the manichean philosophy/world view of the modern founders of conservatism. That philosophy stands in stark contrast to classical conservatism.
Governing is not possible from a negative viewpoint.Governing is also damn difficult! If my views are anti-government how can I govern with any degree of effectiveness what I hate. One small example: Last week I asked a butcher in a super market are these ribs from the back of a standing rib roast? She answered: I don't know. I replied, but you are a butcher! She said: But I'm also a vegetarian and I never touch the stuff, it makes me ill. She added that she was glad to be a vegetarian. What the hell? She turned and walked away. It was then I noticed right behind her were two of those cow charts depicting the location of every cut of meat. Before saying anything else up walked another butcher who asked could he help. By the time I left, my head was reeling about beef facts I never knew. He had even convinced me to buy some free range beef. Now I ask, who would you want running your butcher shop? The one who would be happy to see it eliminated, or the one who wanted it to be an effective operation serving the needs of the customer.
It's easy to be against something. It's easy to say no. Basically that's what this forum is about when it comes to governing, everyone states what they're against. However what I don't see in equal kind what you are for with any degree of specificity. Instead there's sloganeering and talking points. You can't govern with slogans. Here are some examples: We want smaller government. OK, well what in the hell is that? Be specific, not counting the Postal Service, or the military there are approx what? 2.3 million government employees? But wait, there are also approx 13 to 17 million contractors. So who and what do you eliminate? Who and what is included when you say government.
Here's another one: We want a balanced budget! OK in normal peacetime who quibbles with that? But you can't stop there because the Federal Government has to have an approved annual budget. You have discretionary and non-discretionary spending. You also know that of the last 36 years, the government has spent more than it took in for all but 4 years. You also know now that for every dollar of tax cuts, you do not get back more than a dollar over time. So where do you start? Can you balance the budget in one year, two years, etc.? Can you balance the budget by a spending freeze alone in non-defense, non-national security related discretionary programs? Can you balance the budget by tax cuts alone, or the opposite tax increases alone? Might it require a combination of cuts, tax increases and decreases, program changes, etc. to reach a balanced budget over time? Whatever your position aren't you obligated to put specifics on the table?
This leads to: We are for a strong defense: Which means what? I know of no one who runs on a platform of I'm for a weak defense, or no defense. I know of no politician running for office who says or even thinks I want to destroy America. I want to turn jurisdiction of America to some unnamed one world government. No one can take crap like those last 3 statements seriously.
Now any of the preceding would be something meaty, hearty that could spark lively debate, and who knows people might find the differences they thought existed does not, or wasn't as rigid as they thought. At least we would know who is serious about governing and who isn't. If not, I suppose we can continue the Neanderthal like discourse: THEY BAD - WE GOOD. For better or worse our government was designed to operate effectively only through compromise. Despite the silly post I once saw, the Constitution itself was the result of compromise. Neither the Federalist nor the Anti-Federalist got everything they wanted.
If however we want to continue the one note mostly illogical rants, then we can read the posts for what they are and have a good laugh, and sometimes reply and sometimes not. That's not all bad, then we could concentrate on all things gun.
Respectfully
Jim
Welcome back 
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
