as in NOT pretending that this thread doesn't point out serious deficits in the manner in which this administration has supported its servicemen nor does it acknowledge the very singular point about the BAN on ritualized homecomings in order to maintain popularity, popularity at the expense of an important ceremony . . . let's not notice that the innitial post is clear about these issues . . .
The knee-jerks fly in this thread to immediately support the admin no matter what . . . but had the Clinton administration banned this solemn public military ceremony we would hear screams of righteous indignation!!!
Had he done it to support this calamity of foriegn policy they would be crying for another impeachment and saying that this time the reasons are serious
These trained killers voluntarily sign up to defend our country with their lives. It is people like you who give liberals a bad name and allow people like Ann Coulter to get away with such "liberals hate our country" drivel.
If the soldiers who died in Iraq were actually fighting for their country, you would have a point there.
Although there is a slight increase in 2004. the level stays the same thru 2008. That's like saying the price of bread in 2008 is going to be the same as it is now.
Elligiablty seems to be another way of cutting benefits in the form of shifting of the goal line as to who gets what vis a vis when they joined. (today or x years ago.) There will also be new fees(and in some cases higher fees) instigated. And for some higher income veterans benefits will be lost.
I guess you missed the part where medical care(IE tricare) is free for all active duty military members?
If you'd dig deeper you'd know that our pay increases are based around yearly inflation. Our pay at a minimum is always going to be increased .2% less than yearly inflation.
Not only that, but i'll see an increase in my allowance for housing, not only to match inflation in housing costs, but also because Bush agreed to cut out of pocket expenses for housing by 2005.
Not only that, but targeted pay increases this year are actually much higher than what the civilian side is seeing.
In addition, our Montgomery GI bill benefits have been raised yet again another $90/month.
Our hazardous duty/imminent dange and family seperation has also seen a very big increase(almost $300/month more). And were it not for George W., those pay increases would have reverted back to there normal amounts on sept. 31. But now they're effective until Sept. 31, 2004 until congress can actually agree on something.
oh and just wanted to point out to you that veterans are not the same as active duty military.
Veterans are considered someone who's been in and retired in the military.
You should also know that those veterans that don't qualify under this program anymore also make in excess of $8000/month. They'll have an easy time finding their medical care somewhere else.
oh and just wanted to point out to you that veterans are not the same as active duty military.
Veterans are considered someone who's been in and retired in the military.
You should also know that those veterans that don't qualify under this program anymore also make in excess of $8000/month. They'll have an easy time finding their medical care somewhere else.
So i should have said:
Cut benefits to verterans? CHECK
and i was wrong about this one:
Cut salaries to military? CHECK
I stand corrected. Perhaps instead, something along the lines of "To keep this war going he has had to keep reservists active longer than anticipated causing financial hardships as the spouses struggle to keep their householdsd in order"
Which brings the thread completely off topic as my original questions was:
Why is he enforcing this policy for this war?
And my answer is simply that he belives his approval ratings and support for this war will drop if he does. Its not so that katie couric can be blocked from interviewing people on the tarmac.
I stand corrected. Perhaps instead, something along the lines of "To keep this war going he has had to keep reservists active longer than anticipated causing financial hardships as the spouses struggle to keep their householdsd in order"
Please get a firm understanding of what you're talking about before posting misleading and untruthful comments.
First off; there's not a whole lot of reservists(if any) that are losing money while being overseas. Matter of fact, most are probably making even more money than they were.
Why: Because pretty much every company/business has adopted a policy of paying the difference between what a person makes in their civilian job compared to what they'll be making in military base pay. Notice i say Base pay. That's right, they don't count the additional housing/substance allowance(can be more than $1500/month) and combined hazard/seperation pays (up to $685/month). And on top of that, this pay is tax free. So now they're making over $2000 more a month(non taxable mind you) than they were while working their normal jobs. This is what we like to call "double dipping." And reservists love it.
Not only that, but according to the sailor's relief act, long deployments can also entitle you to freeze certain accounts/loans such as credit cards(as well as a no interest rate during this time, and a fixed lower than normal interest rate when coming back), and even to opt out of a contract such as a car lease or apartment lease. And most companies are more than happy and understand and have their own programs setup to allow for no payments/interest accumulation while you are deployed.
I don't think you've read the whole DoD funding package and what it entails.
Higher paying veterans are still entitled to the same medical coverage. They, however must now pay a small enrollment fee, and then the normal premiums.
This is not a stripping of keeping benefits intact,and making it affordable for all veterans. Would you rather have them charge an enrollment fee across the board, in which case many veterans would not be able to afford, and thus would have to go elsewhere for medical coverage(which mind you can be had cheaper elsewhere)?
so.. Make benefits available to all veterans, charge a small fee for the wealthier veterans to keep it available for all veterans. CHECK
A. Existence, if I were standing next to you I'd slap you senseless. You don't have to agree with the war but show some respect and kindness for those who've seen their loved ones pay the ultimate price. Jerk off.
B. This isn't about television. I couldn't care less that they don't show the "Dover Test" stuff on television. What is sickening is that the Bush Administration is (apparently) denying the families of the dead the right to be honored in the traditional way (visit to the home, color guard, etc).
The reason for that of course, is so it's doesn't END UP on television (bad for Georgey Porgey), but it's almost besides the point IMO. Bush is putting his career before the well-being of these families in their darkest hour. It's disgusting.
And my answer is simply that he belives his approval ratings and support for this war will drop if he does. Its not so that katie couric can be blocked from interviewing people on the tarmac.
read your own provided link. It's stated clearly that this has been a policy since 2000.
And there's another policy concerning military installations. You must have a valid military ID and base decal on your car to be permitted entry. Else if not, it's at the base discretion to allow you in. And that only happens under certain circumstances.
And like i said before, what the media does to these servicemembers and how they use them to represent false views and to twist what is going on is a dishonor to those military members and their families.
Oh, so they were forced to join the military now? When conscription was practiced, you might have had a point, but not today. They share the blame equally with those that sent them.
read your own provided link. It's stated clearly that this has been a policy since 2000.
snip
And like i said before, what the media does to these servicemembers and how they use them to represent false views and to twist what is going on is a dishonor to those military members and their families.
That would be the liberal media presumably (the one that doesn't exist), right?
Twisting what is going by (I don't know, uh) putting pictures of the fallen on screen, instead of NOT putting the pictures of the fallen on screen?
read your own provided link. It's stated clearly that this has been a policy since 2000.
But if you read the link scroll to the bottom:
Quote:
The photos of coffins continued for the first two years of the current Bush administration, from Ramstein and other bases. Then, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, word came from the Pentagon that other bases were to adopt Dover's policy of making the arrival ceremonies off limits.
Why did it change with the iraq war?
Quote:
And like i said before, what the media does to these servicemembers and how they use them to represent false views and to twist what is going on is a dishonor to those military members and their families.
That's what i am asking.And I am not asking katie couric or some other newsperson to be able to enter the base. When i say media i mean. Cameras & photographers to be allowed. For the event to be shown to the american people.
I don't see how photographing the caskets returning to america is a "disservice" in fact its the recognition of "honor" and "sacrifice" these soldiers gave.
Why not show it in the same way returning warships are greeted by their families and cameras showing the celebration. This president is not showing it not becuase of fear the media twisting the images into something anti american but simply becuase of fear of losing support. The american people need to see the good and the bad of war.
from my very first link shields said this:
Quote:
By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.
Why was this policy only enforced on the eve of the iraq war?
The Dover Test should be applyed in EVERY conflict. If bush wants war then he needs to be straight with the american people who are sacrficing family members. Not insist on saying "but the schools are opening" and not show the costs.
That would be the liberal media presumably (the one that doesn't exist), right?
Twisting what is going by (I don't know, uh) putting pictures of the fallen on screen, instead of NOT putting the pictures of the fallen on screen?
sigh, so when the media says these people died for something they didn't believe in, you honestly believe that the media asked them before they died, or are basing it on what'll creat more drama/higher ratings?
Or that, putting in big bold letters above pictures of coffins "these people died for bush's lies!"
How is that a fair and accurate account of the truth? How does the media know whether or not these troops died with that on their mind?
Simple, they didn't.
And no i'm no liberal. I'm an American. There is no liberal or conservative for me. No democrat or rebuplican, no right or left. Falling in line with either side is not giving the other side a fair shake.
And I have a hard time believing that a media system that has a model of reporting based around ratings and profit as a truthful and accurate source.
This is the media in which i speak of. It's already been proven that this has been done in the fact that every media source has its own "exclusive" spin, and that their stories change based on what's the popular consensus.
A. Existence, if I were standing next to you I'd slap you senseless. You don't have to agree with the war but show some respect and kindness for those who've seen their loved ones pay the ultimate price. Jerk off.
Do you know what a subject of a sentence is? All my posts refer to the soldiers themselves, not their family. Their families are irrelevant in this discussion of government honoring its tools.
sigh, so when the media says these people died for something they didn't believe in, you honestly believe that the media asked them before they died, or are basing it on what'll creat more drama/higher ratings?
Or that, putting in big bold letters above pictures of coffins "these people died for bush's lies!"
How is that a fair and accurate account of the truth? How does the This is the media in which i speak of. It's already been proven that this has been done in the fact that every media source has its own "exclusive" spin, and that their stories change based on what's the popular consensus.
Liquid, uh, that's almost total bollocks.
You quote 'media' that says the fallen died for something they didn't believe in. During the war, that never happened. Simple. End of story. Not even al-Jazeera said that. End. Of. Story. Just your fantasy media. The media was embedded up tha wazzoo.
When did the media put nice big letters above corpses (the corpses that never made it onto TV due to Gummint diktat) saying people died for Bush's lies? Didn't happen. Hasn't happened. Your fantasy.
... and you go from those fantasies to say "That's the media of which you speak" (if I may improve your grammar). But what media is that exactly? Socialist Worker newspaper maybe. Fox News or the BBC, I think not.
You're saying you'd rather have restrictions on what can be reported so that some non-existent section of the media can't misrepresent it. Frightening.
Please get a firm understanding of what you're talking about before posting misleading and untruthful comments.
First off; there's not a whole lot of reservists(if any) that are losing money while being overseas. Matter of fact, most are probably making even more money than they were
Perhaps you should take your own advice.Then try and tell the folks interviewed in the story how great their lives are.
Do you know what a subject of a sentence is? All my posts refer to the soldiers themselves, not their family. Their families are irrelevant in this discussion of government honoring its tools.
Don't be so obtuse. I know you were referring to the soldiers (and them not being worth honoring because they fight, etc). However, that doesn't mean that their families are not involved in this discussion. The government not allowing the dead to be honored properly, by definition, brings the families into the discussion.
keyboardf12 i know that you can look through the majority of news websites.. and what now.. but don't you question the validity of the press of this? I mean why would they release such a thing? the timing? the press especially AP is out to deconstruct this war... but please don't be fooled by spin.
its as if the liberal media is looking for reasons I mean they just don't like it plain and simple why do they not understand its falling upon deaf ears.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Good Anders.
Let's stay focused
Yeah . . . let's stay focused . . .
as in NOT pretending that this thread doesn't point out serious deficits in the manner in which this administration has supported its servicemen nor does it acknowledge the very singular point about the BAN on ritualized homecomings in order to maintain popularity, popularity at the expense of an important ceremony . . . let's not notice that the innitial post is clear about these issues . . .
The knee-jerks fly in this thread to immediately support the admin no matter what . . . but had the Clinton administration banned this solemn public military ceremony we would hear screams of righteous indignation!!!
Had he done it to support this calamity of foriegn policy they would be crying for another impeachment and saying that this time the reasons are serious
Originally posted by BR
These trained killers voluntarily sign up to defend our country with their lives. It is people like you who give liberals a bad name and allow people like Ann Coulter to get away with such "liberals hate our country" drivel.
If the soldiers who died in Iraq were actually fighting for their country, you would have a point there.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
this congressman discusses the veteran's benefits in the 2004 budget
http://www.house.gov/budget_democrat.../700.htm#back1
Although there is a slight increase in 2004. the level stays the same thru 2008. That's like saying the price of bread in 2008 is going to be the same as it is now.
Elligiablty seems to be another way of cutting benefits in the form of shifting of the goal line as to who gets what vis a vis when they joined. (today or x years ago.) There will also be new fees(and in some cases higher fees) instigated. And for some higher income veterans benefits will be lost.
I guess you missed the part where medical care(IE tricare) is free for all active duty military members?
If you'd dig deeper you'd know that our pay increases are based around yearly inflation. Our pay at a minimum is always going to be increased .2% less than yearly inflation.
Not only that, but i'll see an increase in my allowance for housing, not only to match inflation in housing costs, but also because Bush agreed to cut out of pocket expenses for housing by 2005.
Not only that, but targeted pay increases this year are actually much higher than what the civilian side is seeing.
In addition, our Montgomery GI bill benefits have been raised yet again another $90/month.
Our hazardous duty/imminent dange and family seperation has also seen a very big increase(almost $300/month more). And were it not for George W., those pay increases would have reverted back to there normal amounts on sept. 31. But now they're effective until Sept. 31, 2004 until congress can actually agree on something.
Now tell me where my benefits have gone?
Veterans are considered someone who's been in and retired in the military.
You should also know that those veterans that don't qualify under this program anymore also make in excess of $8000/month. They'll have an easy time finding their medical care somewhere else.
Originally posted by liquidh2o
oh and just wanted to point out to you that veterans are not the same as active duty military.
Veterans are considered someone who's been in and retired in the military.
You should also know that those veterans that don't qualify under this program anymore also make in excess of $8000/month. They'll have an easy time finding their medical care somewhere else.
So i should have said:
Cut benefits to verterans? CHECK
and i was wrong about this one:
Cut salaries to military? CHECK
I stand corrected. Perhaps instead, something along the lines of "To keep this war going he has had to keep reservists active longer than anticipated causing financial hardships as the spouses struggle to keep their householdsd in order"
Which brings the thread completely off topic as my original questions was:
Why is he enforcing this policy for this war?
And my answer is simply that he belives his approval ratings and support for this war will drop if he does. Its not so that katie couric can be blocked from interviewing people on the tarmac.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
I stand corrected. Perhaps instead, something along the lines of "To keep this war going he has had to keep reservists active longer than anticipated causing financial hardships as the spouses struggle to keep their householdsd in order"
Please get a firm understanding of what you're talking about before posting misleading and untruthful comments.
First off; there's not a whole lot of reservists(if any) that are losing money while being overseas. Matter of fact, most are probably making even more money than they were.
Why: Because pretty much every company/business has adopted a policy of paying the difference between what a person makes in their civilian job compared to what they'll be making in military base pay. Notice i say Base pay. That's right, they don't count the additional housing/substance allowance(can be more than $1500/month) and combined hazard/seperation pays (up to $685/month). And on top of that, this pay is tax free. So now they're making over $2000 more a month(non taxable mind you) than they were while working their normal jobs. This is what we like to call "double dipping." And reservists love it.
Not only that, but according to the sailor's relief act, long deployments can also entitle you to freeze certain accounts/loans such as credit cards(as well as a no interest rate during this time, and a fixed lower than normal interest rate when coming back), and even to opt out of a contract such as a car lease or apartment lease. And most companies are more than happy and understand and have their own programs setup to allow for no payments/interest accumulation while you are deployed.
end part I
Originally posted by keyboardf12
So i should have said:
Cut benefits to verterans? CHECK
I don't think you've read the whole DoD funding package and what it entails.
Higher paying veterans are still entitled to the same medical coverage. They, however must now pay a small enrollment fee, and then the normal premiums.
This is not a stripping of keeping benefits intact,and making it affordable for all veterans. Would you rather have them charge an enrollment fee across the board, in which case many veterans would not be able to afford, and thus would have to go elsewhere for medical coverage(which mind you can be had cheaper elsewhere)?
so.. Make benefits available to all veterans, charge a small fee for the wealthier veterans to keep it available for all veterans. CHECK
B. This isn't about television. I couldn't care less that they don't show the "Dover Test" stuff on television. What is sickening is that the Bush Administration is (apparently) denying the families of the dead the right to be honored in the traditional way (visit to the home, color guard, etc).
The reason for that of course, is so it's doesn't END UP on television (bad for Georgey Porgey), but it's almost besides the point IMO. Bush is putting his career before the well-being of these families in their darkest hour. It's disgusting.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Why is he enforcing this policy for this war?
And my answer is simply that he belives his approval ratings and support for this war will drop if he does. Its not so that katie couric can be blocked from interviewing people on the tarmac.
read your own provided link. It's stated clearly that this has been a policy since 2000.
And there's another policy concerning military installations. You must have a valid military ID and base decal on your car to be permitted entry. Else if not, it's at the base discretion to allow you in. And that only happens under certain circumstances.
And like i said before, what the media does to these servicemembers and how they use them to represent false views and to twist what is going on is a dishonor to those military members and their families.
Originally posted by Existence
Oh, so they were forced to join the military now? When conscription was practiced, you might have had a point, but not today. They share the blame equally with those that sent them.
I hope you get beat up in the street.
Originally posted by liquidh2o
read your own provided link. It's stated clearly that this has been a policy since 2000.
snip
And like i said before, what the media does to these servicemembers and how they use them to represent false views and to twist what is going on is a dishonor to those military members and their families.
That would be the liberal media presumably (the one that doesn't exist), right?
Twisting what is going by (I don't know, uh) putting pictures of the fallen on screen, instead of NOT putting the pictures of the fallen on screen?
Originally posted by Harald
That would be the liberal media presumably (the one that doesn't exist), right?
Twisting what is going by (I don't know, uh) putting pictures of the fallen on screen, instead of NOT putting the pictures of the fallen on screen?
All media that I have seen twists it.. which is why I hate the media.. its a pile of crap.
they should post facts, nothing more, not opinions, not little twists or rumors, just facts... but noooooo....
read your own provided link. It's stated clearly that this has been a policy since 2000.
But if you read the link scroll to the bottom:
The photos of coffins continued for the first two years of the current Bush administration, from Ramstein and other bases. Then, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, word came from the Pentagon that other bases were to adopt Dover's policy of making the arrival ceremonies off limits.
Why did it change with the iraq war?
And like i said before, what the media does to these servicemembers and how they use them to represent false views and to twist what is going on is a dishonor to those military members and their families.
That's what i am asking.And I am not asking katie couric or some other newsperson to be able to enter the base. When i say media i mean. Cameras & photographers to be allowed. For the event to be shown to the american people.
I don't see how photographing the caskets returning to america is a "disservice" in fact its the recognition of "honor" and "sacrifice" these soldiers gave.
Why not show it in the same way returning warships are greeted by their families and cameras showing the celebration. This president is not showing it not becuase of fear the media twisting the images into something anti american but simply becuase of fear of losing support. The american people need to see the good and the bad of war.
from my very first link shields said this:
By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.
Why was this policy only enforced on the eve of the iraq war?
The Dover Test should be applyed in EVERY conflict. If bush wants war then he needs to be straight with the american people who are sacrficing family members. Not insist on saying "but the schools are opening" and not show the costs.
Originally posted by Harald
That would be the liberal media presumably (the one that doesn't exist), right?
Twisting what is going by (I don't know, uh) putting pictures of the fallen on screen, instead of NOT putting the pictures of the fallen on screen?
sigh, so when the media says these people died for something they didn't believe in, you honestly believe that the media asked them before they died, or are basing it on what'll creat more drama/higher ratings?
Or that, putting in big bold letters above pictures of coffins "these people died for bush's lies!"
How is that a fair and accurate account of the truth? How does the media know whether or not these troops died with that on their mind?
Simple, they didn't.
And no i'm no liberal. I'm an American. There is no liberal or conservative for me. No democrat or rebuplican, no right or left. Falling in line with either side is not giving the other side a fair shake.
And I have a hard time believing that a media system that has a model of reporting based around ratings and profit as a truthful and accurate source.
This is the media in which i speak of. It's already been proven that this has been done in the fact that every media source has its own "exclusive" spin, and that their stories change based on what's the popular consensus.
Originally posted by Moogs
A. Existence, if I were standing next to you I'd slap you senseless. You don't have to agree with the war but show some respect and kindness for those who've seen their loved ones pay the ultimate price. Jerk off.
Do you know what a subject of a sentence is? All my posts refer to the soldiers themselves, not their family. Their families are irrelevant in this discussion of government honoring its tools.
Originally posted by liquidh2o
sigh, so when the media says these people died for something they didn't believe in, you honestly believe that the media asked them before they died, or are basing it on what'll creat more drama/higher ratings?
Or that, putting in big bold letters above pictures of coffins "these people died for bush's lies!"
How is that a fair and accurate account of the truth? How does the This is the media in which i speak of. It's already been proven that this has been done in the fact that every media source has its own "exclusive" spin, and that their stories change based on what's the popular consensus.
Liquid, uh, that's almost total bollocks.
You quote 'media' that says the fallen died for something they didn't believe in. During the war, that never happened. Simple. End of story. Not even al-Jazeera said that. End. Of. Story. Just your fantasy media. The media was embedded up tha wazzoo.
When did the media put nice big letters above corpses (the corpses that never made it onto TV due to Gummint diktat) saying people died for Bush's lies? Didn't happen. Hasn't happened. Your fantasy.
... and you go from those fantasies to say "That's the media of which you speak" (if I may improve your grammar). But what media is that exactly? Socialist Worker newspaper maybe. Fox News or the BBC, I think not.
You're saying you'd rather have restrictions on what can be reported so that some non-existent section of the media can't misrepresent it. Frightening.
Please get a firm understanding of what you're talking about before posting misleading and untruthful comments.
First off; there's not a whole lot of reservists(if any) that are losing money while being overseas. Matter of fact, most are probably making even more money than they were
Perhaps you should take your own advice.Then try and tell the folks interviewed in the story how great their lives are.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/...ve-cover_x.htm
Originally posted by Existence
Do you know what a subject of a sentence is? All my posts refer to the soldiers themselves, not their family. Their families are irrelevant in this discussion of government honoring its tools.
Don't be so obtuse. I know you were referring to the soldiers (and them not being worth honoring because they fight, etc). However, that doesn't mean that their families are not involved in this discussion. The government not allowing the dead to be honored properly, by definition, brings the families into the discussion.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Perhaps you should take your own advice.Then try and tell the folks interviewed in the story how great their lives are.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/...ve-cover_x.htm
keyboardf12 i know that you can look through the majority of news websites.. and what now.. but don't you question the validity of the press of this? I mean why would they release such a thing? the timing? the press especially AP is out to deconstruct this war... but please don't be fooled by spin.
its as if the liberal media is looking for reasons