Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on September 19, 2002, 05:58:41 AM
-
No matter what you think of him, you'll have to agree he has a good message here....
I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving the country in uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11.
Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.
If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad.
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing.
However, our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month, and most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.
If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harm's way receive a pension of $15,000 per month.
I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
"When do we finally do something about this?"
GOD Bless America, and those who protect her.
Rush Limbaugh - March 11, 2002
-
people are broken.
-
sad
read somewhere the jokers selling rolexs out of briefcases in and around the WTC area are entitled to a $12,000 gov check :rolleyes:
-
WTF? has the world started spinning the other direction?
I've found something that I agree 100% with Rush on.
-
Mandatory military service for all. That's the ticket.
No exemptions. No exclusions. No waivers.
That said, I can't say I met a lot of patriots while I was in the service.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Mandatory military service for all. That's the ticket.
No exemptions. No exclusions. No waivers.
I agree 100%!
-
There would have to be an exemption for "anal cysts", the terrible disorder that prevented Limbaugh from serving in the military.
-
Would military even want people that were drafted against their will? Most people who served in drafted militaries would tell you those suck.
I believe I have the best solution to having good volunteer military, concientious citizens and right politicians:
No service - no vote
miko
-
like Israel - 18 off to duty - no if ands or buts
can say it'd straighten out many more youths than it'd screw up this day and age ..
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Would military even want people that were drafted against their will? Most people who served in drafted militaries would tell you those suck.
I believe I have the best solution to having good volunteer military, concientious citizens and right politicians:
No service - no vote
miko
Oh my, you'd have the Democrats squirming on that one...they depend on minorities, prison inmates and welfare trash for their votes! :D
-
Rush playing fast and loose with the facts again.
IIRC most of the money received by the families of 9-11 came from private sources.
-
The basic nature of man is bad.
Does this help explain it?
-
There would have to be an exemption for "anal cysts", the terrible disorder that prevented Limbaugh from serving in the military.
How would being an impacted bellybutton pimple keep you from being in the military? I've met lots of them in my civil service career.
Oh, wait -- you meant having impacted bellybutton pimples. Never mind.
-
As usual, Rush is manipulating the facts to feed his showmanship ratings war.
Yes, the servicemen are getting screwed in comparison to civilian pay.
But...
Rush uses the average compensation for WTC victims, but doesn't use the average compensation for servicemen killed in the line of duty. If he's going to do comparisons, he should use the same calculations.
He also doesn't allow for the ratio of loss. There were a lot of WTC workers bringing in a lot of big salaries. If there was a powerhouse of business, it was the WTC. There was money there, a lot of fat wallets. Those wallets are gone and the survivors are trying to compensate for a lot of big-ticket lost income.
Ok, so who do you think is getting killed in action overseas? I'll bet a lot of the servicemen are probably Lts. and below, with the equivalent rank of a civilian making about $35,000 a year in a white-collar entry-level professional job, down to $21,000 a year in manual labor-type work. PFCs are the military version of a Vo-Tech graduate. Incidentally, the starting salary for a college-educated school teacher is $21,000 here (which is a whole lecture in itself) so I'm being generous with the $35k salary. I don't imagine there are too many captains, majors, colonels, and generals sitting on the front lines with a rifle in their hands.
So, yeah, there's a differential in compensation, but you have to realize the relative impact when compared to lost wages.
As for Congress giving itself a raise, I always wondered if we paid better for our politicians, would the quality of politicians increase. Seems the really good guys know that they can make more money being giants of industry rather than politicians. You get what you pay for.
Now, in my opinion, servicemen have the the worst PITA-to-compensation ratio of any occupation. (PITA = Pain In The bellybutton - sort of a "is the benefit worth the pain in the bellybutton to work for it?"). They're always moving, have very little control over where they're stationed, can't quit if they don't like it, and generally are put in harm's way whether they want to be there or not. And for what? Crap money.
Its not a job I'd want.
-
"There were a lot of WTC workers bringing in a lot of big salaries. If there was a powerhouse of business, it was the WTC. There was money there, a lot of fat wallets. Those wallets are gone and the survivors are trying to compensate for a lot of big-ticket lost income."
Well, I sure don't want to see the survivors starve, but I don't think I want my taxes to support them in the "manner to which they have become accustomed". I'd set a cap on the compensation.
-
I'd say no vote without mandatory federal service.
Not military service. Military service is for certain totally incompatible with certain types of people who would still without a doubt make outstanding citizens.
Federal service could be anything that benefits the citizenry. Medical, construction (a la the old time CCC), law enforcement support (data/admin/etc.), etc.
The key point is this - the best way to trust someone to vote for the common good of the Nation is for them to prove thru service that they are willing to put the common good of the Nation above their own comfort, financial gain, etc.
I'd also say no political office of any type without required federal service.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by popeye
"There were a lot of WTC workers bringing in a lot of big salaries. If there was a powerhouse of business, it was the WTC. There was money there, a lot of fat wallets. Those wallets are gone and the survivors are trying to compensate for a lot of big-ticket lost income."
Well, I sure don't want to see the survivors starve, but I don't think I want my taxes to support them in the "manner to which they have become accustomed". I'd set a cap on the compensation.
Its not the government that's providing the compensation; its the life insurance policies and private donations to the relief funds. As usual, Rush doesn't provide THAT bit of detail. The assumption by the listener is that, if Rush is talking, then he's talking about the government. And that's why I don't like listening to Rush Limbaugh. As I said earlier, he manipulates the facts to cause outrage by his listeners, which causes an increase in ratings, which allows him to get paid more money.
Like Deep Throat (Pat Buchanan) told Bob Woodward: "Follow the money." :cool:
-
Originally posted by wulfie
I'd say no vote without mandatory federal service.
Not military service. Military service is for certain totally incompatible with certain types of people who would still without a doubt make outstanding citizens.
Federal service could be anything that benefits the citizenry. Medical, construction (a la the old time CCC), law enforcement support (data/admin/etc.), etc.
The key point is this - the best way to trust someone to vote for the common good of the Nation is for them to prove thru service that they are willing to put the common good of the Nation above their own comfort, financial gain, etc.
I'd also say no political office of any type without required federal service.
Mike/wulfie
So, if you can't get a federal job then you aren't allowed to vote?
I can tell you right now, there are more people in this great nation than there are federal occupations.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Not military service. Military service is for certain totally incompatible with certain types of people who would still without a doubt make outstanding citizens.
I would agree that some people may be excused from serving where they may have to kill, but nobody should be excused from serving where they can get killed.
As a citizen, you vote for policy that may result in a war. It's only fair that the one with such significant privilege bears equal personal responcibility.
Those who do not pay taxes are not as interested in reducing them. Those who do not share danger of getting killed or having their children killed should not be able to send others in danger.
So many people are willing to support all kinds of good causes by sending US troops. Very few volunteer to personally go there and fight.
What you are proposing is buying citizenship, not qualifying for it.
miko
-
No service - no vote
the percentage of eligible voters that do vote is already lo.
I would like to see a system of Citizens, Subjects and aliens based on a service model.
Full citizenship to those who offer their service to the greater good of the Nation. They could serve in any roll state or federal level.
Subjects are those born here but choose not to participate.
Aliens are immigrants and would be eligible for citizenship through sevice as well.
They would all be protected under the bill of rights but citizens would vote and recieve things like free secondary education and reduced taxes. The right to vote would be reserved for citizens but they we have to qualify every x amount of year by taking a basic civics exam. Too many people now just get bussed to a poling station and get told who to vote for with out the slightest understanding of how the process works.
-
Sort of like the the "Sofa Generals" watching CNN, asking why we didn't march to Baghdad.......Muhahahaa:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I would like to see a system of Citizens, Subjects and aliens based on a service model.
They would all be protected under the bill of rights but citizens would vote and recieve things like free secondary education and reduced taxes. The right to vote would be reserved for citizens but they we have to qualify every x amount of year by taking a basic civics exam.
You've been watching "Starship Troopers" too much. As it is, people complain about performing basic jury duty. Do you really think people would want to take a test? The result would be that fewer people would vote, and then you'd REALLY see some election manipulation going on. As it is, the private interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and politicians control the election process to a larger degree than they should. By making it a burden upon the common man to simply vote, you're making it easier for those select few with a direct economic interest to manipulate the elections, and the legislation.
Originally posted by Wotan
Too many people now just get bussed to a polling station and get told who to vote for with out the slightest understanding of how the process works.
And who would that be? And where would it be occurring? Let me know so that I can fire off a stern memo to the local election officials regarding campaign reforms and the losing candidates so that they can file a lawsuit.:eek:
-
You've been watching "Starship Troopers" too much. As it is, people complain about performing basic jury duty. Do you really think people would want to take a test? The result would be that fewer people would vote, and then you'd REALLY see some election manipulation going on. As it is, the private interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and politicians control the election process to a larger degree than they should. By making it a burden upon the common man to simply vote, you're making it easier for those select few with a direct economic interest to manipulate the elections, and the legislation.
I dont watch tv so I dunno what your talking about "Starship Troopers"
But the fact fewer people would be eligible to vote could also mean that these folks are better versed in whats going on and able to hold a politician to a greater level of accountablilty. It would be much tougher to fool a few well informed section of society then a large group of sheep. The only people excluded from citizenship are folks who choose not to serve their community.
As for bussing we just had election here in florida and there were several groups who joined together to offer "rides to the polls". Granted they cant make anyone vote one way or another but they certainly can influence a persons descision. At one pick up point there was a representative handing out "ticket information" with a list of preferred canidates. This same type goes on at several churches (religous right types) where they hand out "lists of candidates". Theres nothing illegal about it. Thats just the way it is.
-
Solution-- Roll back the 16th Amendment.
-
Would military even want people that were drafted against their will? Most people who served in drafted militaries would tell you those suck.
I believe I have the best solution to having good volunteer military, concientious citizens and right politicians:
No service - no vote
miko
Oh my, you'd have the Republicans squirming on that one...they depend on KKK members, Aryan prison inmates and trailer park trash for their votes!
:D
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I dont watch tv so I dunno what your talking about "Starship Troopers"
I was referring to the movie. It didn't do well in the theatres, but its worth a weekend rental. Too bad Denise Richards didn't show any skin. :(
Originally posted by Wotan
But the fact fewer people would be eligible to vote could also mean that these folks are better versed in whats going on and able to hold a politician to a greater level of accountablilty. It would be much tougher to fool a few well informed section of society then a large group of sheep. The only people excluded from citizenship are folks who choose not to serve their community.
It could mean that. But the reality would be that it would be easier for the system to be manipulated by a select few in key positions - "Vote Your Commanding Officer for Governor!". By enacting barricades to keep the common man from controlling his destiny, you give rise to a revolution by the people. Your basic premise is that people that vote are incompetent (not that it isn't true - I would guess that's how Sonny Bono got to Congress). I would counter that the people that take the time to vote are actually interested in voting for a particular candidate and have a pretty good idea of the ability of that candidate to govern. Sure, in the primaries and local elections they may not be familiar with the opinions and stances of every judge or councilman on the ballott, but chances are that they know which candidate they want to be their governor.
Originally posted by Wotan
As for bussing we just had election here in florida and there were several groups who joined together to offer "rides to the polls". Granted they cant make anyone vote one way or another but they certainly can influence a persons descision. At one pick up point there was a representative handing out "ticket information" with a list of preferred canidates. This same type goes on at several churches (religous right types) where they hand out "lists of candidates". Theres nothing illegal about it. Thats just the way it is.
I took part in those same elections. My assumption is that these busses visited the retirement communities and public housing areas or other spots where there was a density of people without transportation. Its a noble service that may not have the results the bus operators wanted - those people might very well have voted for someone other than the endorsed candidates. By law, campaign organizations may not solicit votes within a certain distance of the polls. This doesn't apply to the vehicles that go to the polls. So, yeah, it wasn't illegal, but it is shady. Then again, so is endorsement of particular candidates by the media, who have a far stronger influence on the booths than bus operators.
-
Sounds like elitist BS to me.
"All people are stupid and must be controlled" except me of course, and Rush Limbaugh.
and
How dare they bus all those poor people in to vote! :rolleyes:
-
This is amusing.. the people who vote are the dumb ones...
Nevermind that there are few if any candidates actually worthy of being in any office, let alone leading a state or the country....
-SW
-
gofaster: By enacting barricades to keep the common man from controlling his destiny, you give rise to a revolution by the people.
Not true. Government has powers of coersion and people in conrol of the government (voters) can exercise control over your life - including outright exploitation. It is only fair that such people are qualified.
Enacting "barricades" that filter by competence and motivation will lead to incredibly stable situation - any person who is capable and motivated to participate in revolution would be able to get franchise and would not be interested in revolution. Those too stupid or lazy will not be likely to raise in arms - especially without capable and dedicated leaders.
Such system is commonly referred to as "meritocracy".
Granted, smart unscrupulous leaders often use dumb masses for their political ends. But even those would have much harder time persuading them to revolt than now they have persuading them to vote. The scoundrels would be deprived of the powerfull tool.
"Common man" never controlled his destiny. The best he can expect is competent and honest rulers (meaning enfranchised voters and elected officials) who proved their civic worth by something more than just rhetoric.
miko
-
I think some of you are missing the point, and also, that some will take any opportunity to slam Rush Limbaugh.
Nowhere in that quote did he say where the funds are coming from that are being used to compensate the familys of the 9/11 victims. I think he is basically showing his disgust with the greed they are displaying.
What he is doing is comparing the members of the military who accept the risks and consequence of going in harms way to protect and serve our nation, and the compensation their families stand to receive if they die doing so, with the compensation supplied to victims families who can't get enough to satisfy their greed. It doesnt matter where the funds come from.
I will state without hesitation that I feel all persons lives are of equal value to their loved ones when they die, regardless of the amount of money they made when they were alive. I personally have greater respect and appreciation for someone who died fighing a terrorist enemy in foreign lands to secure our safety than someone who died on accident or through terrorist act without knowingly put himself or herself at risk.
Rush is also highlighting the fact that members of Congress are free to give themselves generous raises and make sure they retire extremely well, while at the same time they can easily commit to war our nations young people and do so without providing adequate financial compensation compatible with the risk and sacrifice they face.
Put your Rush bashing aside, consider the subject of his commentary objectively.
Truth be told, a few of you are guilty of exactly what you accuse Rush of doing. You say something, challenging what someone else said (Rush) without offering proof or facts to back yourself up.
My thoughts: Yes, some victims families are displaying greed and some undeserved sense of entitlement. No, most members of the military who risk their very lives to protect us are not adequatly compensated, nor are their families adequately compenstated when their loved ones die in our service. And no, Congress should absolutely not be allowed the power to decide their own salaries and retirement programs, its letting the fox into the hen house.
dago
-
"You've been watching "Starship Troopers" too much. "
The movie was fine, but read the book! RAH had some good ideas.
TANSTAAFL
-
i would make a longer reply but miko covered everything I would say.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Oh my, you'd have the Republicans squirming on that one...they depend on KKK members, Aryan prison inmates and trailer park trash for their votes!
:D
Nah, doesn't even come close to the number of votes that the Dems depend on ;) Thats evident everytime you get a man of color running on a republican ticket or a Supreme court panel, the dems go out of their way to make the person disingenuous. Funny to watch! ;)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Nowhere in that quote did he say where the funds are coming from that are being used to compensate the familys of the 9/11 victims. I think he is basically showing his disgust with the greed they are displaying.
That's exactly my point. But I wouldn't say the recipients are greedy - if you pay for insurance, you should get what you pay for. If someone wants to give you money, then you have the right to accept it (so long as its not a bribe or payolla). What Rush was attempting to point out was the inequity being shown towards members of the military by the American public. People were quick to line up to donate funds for civilian victims of the attack, but if they were presented with proposed increases to their taxes to allow for better benefits for servicemen, do you think they would be quite so quick to contribute?
Originally posted by Dago What he is doing is comparing the members of the military who accept the risks and consequence of going in harms way to protect and serve our nation, and the compensation their families stand to receive if they die doing so, with the compensation supplied to victims families who can't get enough to satisfy their greed. It doesnt matter where the funds come from.
[/B]
Actually, it does, because it shows where the concern and support is generated. Government money is faceless - its from a giant pool of funds called "taxes" that are distributed based on approved budgets. Donated money is personal - people have given money for a specific purpose. The fact that WTC funds are donated and are in greater quantity than government money for servicemen is a strong statement that shouldn't be ignored. There are associations for the branches of the military that strive to improve benefits for servicemen - I was a member of the Air Force Association for a year - but they don't get nearly the support from the public that the WTC relief groups did. Maybe they just don't have the right PR groups. Maybe the AFA should release a video.
The difference between me and Rush is that if I say something inflammatory, its because I want you to think, not because I'm trying to cover overhead expenses and sell commercial space. That's also why I don't like listening to political call-in shows. Most of the time, those guys are fishing for phone calls and playing Devil's advocate to deliberately generate calls and build an audience.
Follow the money.
-
All right-wing talk-show hosts (which I still prefer to liberal ones) are damn hippocrytes - Rush, Sean Hannity, etc.
That is not because the "free market, personal responcibility" part of their philosophy is wrong but because they junk those ideals when they find theselves on the receiving end.
It may seem to a layperson that soldiers' compensation for risk is inadequate - especially in view of other compensations. So what? For the three real patriots we have in our army the good deed and a chance to be given opportnity to murder people is it's own reward. For the guys who went there to get military and other training and have a man made out of them and earn some money and college tuition and quicker citizenship and see the world, the rewards apparently outweight the risks of being killed.
The holy (for conservatives) "Supply and demand" is working just fine here. If the risks were too great, those people would not be in the military but in another occupation. Except if they were loosers who could not succeed elsewhere. But then why would I pay a lot for a looser even on such responcible job?
Maybe if fewer people were willing to take the job for the pittance they receive, our politicians would not be so eager to rattle their sabers. Same goes for police and firefighters. And teachers. Those all provide very important services and if people are not willing to pay for them, I say f$@k the people! Let them do without.
By "patriotically" accepting lousy pay for such jobs those guys are not doing people any favors - corrupting them in effect.
How about another blunder of those self-labeled "conservatives" - "Bush should not wait for Congress approval (of Iraq invasion) because those democrats will not vote to give him a mandate fighting for democracy". Guess what - that is what democracy is about - voting. If our congress votes us into the ground, that is our democratic choice! Calling for the fight for democracy by undemocratic means is not very conservative attitude.
Maybe the AFA should release a video.
Maybe pilots shoule quit and advise the others not to enroll untill their payrates are improved.
At the same time a victim of terrorism can hardly quit. Of course there is something about freely choosing to work in a prime terrorist target in the world.
miko
-
Good point Miko regarding the free market.
Rush is a lying sack and there is NO excuse for the way he "reports" the news. Even liberals don't have the slant he does.
According to Rush Lyingsack
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough.
Some people? Where? Who?
How about this - Some people feel that their military compensation is just fine.
Rush didn't make any point at all. He started out with a BS premise and that will always lead to a BS conclusion.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh my, you'd have the Democrats squirming on that one...they depend on minorities, prison inmates and welfare trash for their votes! :D
You obviously haven't been in military lately.
On my ship close to 50% of sailors were black.
The most represented social class was the kids of welfare parents, trying to get ahead in life.
10% the ship was forginers of all walks of life.
This is on CVN. 5000+ crew.
Rich kids don't die in wars. They join national guard or go to canada.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
You obviously haven't been in military lately.
On my ship close to 50% of sailors were black.
The most represented social class was the kids of welfare parents, trying to get ahead in life.
10% the ship was forginers of all walks of life.
This is on CVN. 5000+ crew.
Rich kids don't die in wars. They join national guard or go to canada.
The ironic part is, the Democrats don't want those Military votes counted, do you know why? :D (Psst, has nothing to do with color, but alot to do with moral character) Not quite what happended with you though, figured you used the Navy to get your citizenship? You sound bitter about your service time...
-
What exacly have you done for your country ? Other when whine ?
And what exacly gives you right to question my motives since you are only benefiting from my service while sitting in your nice protected home ?
In famous words of good old Jack :)
" I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way."
Since you are always so theatrical and extraverted with your patriotism and thankfullness for veterans, you can now thank me nicely, for doing my duty.
-
Rip, have you ever been in the military?
-
I'm not here to defend my actions nor explain how *I* help America, I'm here to ask FDski, who proudly puts down Americans, and their cultures, but enjoys the benefits of America...what purpose you joined the US Navy other than to get a free ticket to the land of honey?
-
I had an entirely different reason for saying that everyone should serve in the military.
Look at the volunteers. Look where the vast majority come from. Now look at the legislators and corporate interests. The latter are the elite. They really have no reason to care about the people that might sacrifice their very lives in service of this country's interests.
Imagine how much they'd care if it were their own kids out on the tip of the sword.
Sure... they all give lip service about patriotism and yadda yadda, but it's just talk. It gets votes and funding.
You want this nation to really care about the well being of people that serve it? They will when the people out risking their lives are family and not just some blip on the shallow end of the demographic spectrum.
-
Your ignorance is showing Rip. :)
To join US military, you have to be :
a) citizen
b) green card holder.
GreenCard holder will be granted citizenship after 5 years of residency in US, regardless of his service status.
I got my greencard since i happend to be a son of my mother, who in turn "won" it in INS lottery in 1990.
I could have sat on welfare for 5 years and still get my ticket to "land of honey"
Serviceman can apply for citizenship after completing 3 years of service. I applied for mine 7 years after recieving greencard, and 2 years after leaving service.
who proudly puts down Americans, and their cultures
I guess you missed this:
Article I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I can have any opinion i want. I AM AN AMERICAN. Doesn't that really burn your bellybutton ? :D
I've earned that right. What have you done ?
And how dare you question my motives ? I'M A AMERICAN VETERAN !!! That must hurt eh ? :)
-
Ski, you've served in a war? (not during)
Just curious, cuz unless you have you don't qualify as a veteran...
or is that combat veteran? Hell, I dunno.. all that's confusing...
-SW
-
Ok Rip, since you "agree 100%" with Sandman's statement that Military service should be required without exception.....Did you, yourself, serve in the Military?
That should be easy to answer without the "I'm not here to defend my blah, blah, blah," crap
Cobra
-
The ironic part is, the Democrats don't want those Military votes counted, do you know why?
Because they're postmarked after election day?
-
miko2d,
We think alike. I don't think that 'serving to your detriment for the common good' needs to equal the distinct possibility of getting killed.
What I meant was that there are certain people who would be of no use to the military who would be of great use to the Nation in other non-military fields.
If mandatory service catches a guy who has an IQ of 200 and is a shoe-in for crypto work, for Heaven's sake keep him away from boot camp. The lack of reading material would kill him. :)
Send a guy like that to a 3 week 'acclimation course' and put him to work in an underground complex somewhere. Being forced to focus on things other than the true origin of the universe for 2 or 3 years alone is punishment enough for someone like that. See what I'm getting at?
Also - for all reading - fd-ski, being a former Sailor , has nailed it dead on the head. About half of the guys in my class in boot camp (USN) were black. A decent % of those chose the military because it was the one job they could work in that would allow them to support a family of 2 with full medical benefits. They were extremely grateful for such an opportunity. This was back in the mid-late '80s.
And for the 'only the poor serve'. I'm probably career military. I'm the only guy on my Dad's side of the family that isn't a Doctor (college degree in engineering however). My Dad was very well off when I was growing up. I enlisted at a young age. Piss off.
Did I mention that every guy on both sides of my Family served in the military, with most of them having wealthy parents? Piss off.
Anyone care to venture a guess as to what % of the ground combat casualties in Vietnam were '18 year old black draftees'?
Anyone care to venture a guess as to what % of casualties in Vietnam were draftees as opposed to professional/career military?
Here's a hint. If you are of the mind that 'only the poor serve/see combat/die' you've spent too much time on your knees in front of Dan Rather, etc.
For anyone interested - here's a link to the Vietnam casualty database. Very interesting...
http://www.no-quarter.org/
...'enjoy'.
The main problem is this, and it was noted several years ago. The active duty military has less in common with the general citizenry as each generation goes by. It used to be that it was guranteed that a person living in the U.S. had a direct family member who had served in the military.
That detachment is a decent argument for maybe 2 years required military service (non-violence types can be Stateside-only maintenance maybe?). It's also the reason you see the military inviting the press to more and more functions/situations/etc.
Because it can be dangerous when a voting citizenry doesn't have clue #1 about the military, real life, the rest of the world from the point of view of being on the ground there, etc. Or even worse, they think they have clue #1 from some movies or a couple of CNN/CNBC 'documentaries'.
That situation is approaching the majority more and more each day. Reading posts on the AH BBS is all you need for some evidence. When someone with no real world experience honestly asks about some outlandish rumor regarding the military, national security, etc. and is 'educated' by the few with such real experience...imagine everyone in the U.S.A. who doesn't have the time, presence of mind, or resources to ask.
If I ever have kids, I'll strongly suggest they do a couple of years in the armed forces. I learned about many things at a young age before I had a chance to become biased because of the armed forces. It's one thing for kids to be told that they shouldn't complain because they 'live in the greatest Nation in the world'. It's another thing entirely for someone who is 18, 19, 20 to compare a mostly deserted village in the middle of the desert somewhere (and hear that most of the people left because the primary water source was gone - "Primary water source? You mean the whole neighborhood ran out of water?") with the block or two they grew up on back at home. That's the kind of perspective that seems to be needed and is lacking that mandatory service might give.
Mike/wulfie
-
AKSwulfe,
A veteran is someone who has served in the U.S. military.
A combat veteran is someone who has 'seen combat'. The definition of 'seeing combat' is hazy at best. If you have to ask if you are a 'combat veteran', you probably aren't.
I will tell you this - Sailors die while manning ships in the USN *all the time*. CNN doesn't report it, but it still happens. The main purposes of USN Boot Camp is to teach young potential Sailors how to *not* get killed doing their 0500-2300 'daily shift' aboard a warship (I'm not kidding about the hours). The stories you get in Boot Camp about how guys die in accidents in the fleet would give Stephen King some good writing material.
The same goes for Air Force groundcrew working at busy forward bases.
The same goes for Soldiers and Marines as well.
Being in the military is more often than not dangerous work as a rule - on a day to day basis. Accidents are often fatal. Fd-Ski's ship may have never been fired on (I don't know if it was) - I gurantee you he can tell you some stories of guys getting killed on that ship while working.
Mike/wulfie
-
Okay, I see I was wrong. :)
I was under the impression (not anymore of course) that to be a veteran you had to serve in combat.. or actively in a conflict..
ie: ship in Japan while the conflict is in Jamaica or something..
Anyhow, thanks for the correction.
-SW
-
“It may seem to a layperson that soldiers' compensation for risk is inadequate - especially in view of other compensations. So what? For the three real patriots we have in our army the good deed and a chance to be given opportunity to murder people is it's own reward.”- Miko2d
I challenge you to stand up and say this to an old man who waded ashore on Tarawa, you’d be lucky to still have your teeth. There are many who value their service in Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm who may feel the same way about your equating service to one's country and defending freedom with murder.
“Rush is a lying sack and there is NO excuse for the way he "reports" the news. Even liberals don't have the slant he does.” Midnight Target
Rush does not pretend to be a reporter (Like Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, and whoever CNN has reading the news) He is an advocate, he is supposed to slant the news, that is his job.
-
Solution-- Roll back the 16th Amendment.
what does rolling back the federal governments authority to tax income have to with this thread?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
what does rolling back the federal governments authority to tax income have to with this thread?
My guess is that he was making the point that if everyone is going to pay taxes to support the government, then they should have the right to have a voice in that government, without restrictions such as having to take a qualification test or serve in a federal occupation.
-
miko: It may seem to a layperson that soldiers' compensation for risk is inadequate - especially in view of other compensations. So what? For the three real patriots we have in our army the good deed and a chance to be given opportunity to murder people is it's own reward.”- Miko2d
Holden McGroin: I challenge you to stand up and say this to an old man who waded ashore on Tarawa, you’d be lucky to still have your teeth. There are many who value their service in Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm who may feel the same way about your equating service to one's country and defending freedom with murder.
Well, if you want to knock someone's teeth off under false pretext of patriotism, you may still bother to find a more plausible reason that at least has something to do with what I said.
If a patriot that volunteered and waded ashore on Tarawa is still serving in our professional army, he is included among the three patriots I've mentioned.
You are free to think that the US army is full of idealistic educated people striving to protect the freedoms of the population which does not deserve it or appreciate it, and that best soldiers are choireboys rather than anti-social types looking forward to killing someone that you would not want to live on the same block with.
You can paint yourself all kinds of rosy pictures about people and countries and what they say about themselves and their motives after the fact in order to get as much credit from what they had no choice but to do or justify evil things that they did willingly.
I was in combat. Fooling myself about motivations and characters of my comrades would have gotten me killed - likely in very unpleasant ways. I credit my native intelligence and strength of character with my ability to face ugly reality, but my military service was like having a Ph.D. in that subject.
wulfie: I don't think that 'serving to your detriment for the common good' needs to equal the distinct possibility of getting killed.
I disagree on principle. The Founders perceived a very limited government dedicated to basically one issue - defence. Instead of making it huge and all-encompassing, a system of multiple-governments or at least franchise types would be more fair based on responcibility balancing privilege.
You pay taxes - you have a say on economic policy.
You breeze - you have a vote on ecology.
You make decisions that can cause war - you earn it by a term in military forces where you do not necessarily decide where you serve.
What I meant was that there are certain people who would be of no use to the military who would be of great use to the Nation in other non-military fields.
I am not sure about health problems. While there are statistically too few of those to matter, I would not mind giving them full rights. The capabilities are not essential. The principle is - you put yourself under orders which could mean your death. Only then you deserve a right to formulate such orders.
If mandatory service catches a guy who has an IQ of 200 and is a shoe-in for crypto work, for Heaven's sake keep him away from boot camp.
Such guy would be a national treasure and should be hired at any cost even if he is a multiple child-molester and a cannibal. But if he wants to vote on whether to send some boys with rifles into a hot spot, he must serve a term where he could have been sent to fight himself.
Oh, yes - grab his sperm while you are at it.
The lack of reading material would kill him.
:) I see you know the situation. In my regiment I was mentioned before the full assembly with reading more books from the regiment library in two months than was read in the whole history of that library. Good thing nobody had inclination to figure out exactly when I had time to read so much with average two hours of sleep a day. Suffice it to say that if someone cared to sneak in and drive out a battle tank, he should have chosen my shift on centry duty...
Incidentally, one of the books was a translation of a memoirs by a US spec-ops guy who prowled the vietnamese jungles with a small vietnamese team. That was pretty much all the theoretical spec-ops training that I had. In a few months I owed my life to that book.
If I ever have kids, I'll strongly suggest they do a couple of years in the armed forces.
I have the same concern. Which one you are thinking about that would not be completely sissyfied by that time? IDF? French Foreign Legion?
For lay people who view military as a service branch of state and soldiers same as any other hired help, like mailmen and subscribe to false Clausewits' view that military is a continuation of politics - it is wrong.
The core of professional military service worth mentioning consists of warriors rather than soldiers - not an occupation but a culture. Distinct culture that has not much in common with civil one and little chance to be understood by a civilian. Even most of the people who serve a few years do not become a part of that culture - it requires certain character traits - but at least they realise it exists.
miko
-
Limbaugh The Liar
(Sung to the tune of "Great Balls of Fire" by Jerry Lee Lewis)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got such nerve and you've addled your brain.
Your right wing drivel drives us all insane.
You right wing shill...
You're such a pill...
So pugnacious, Limbaugh the Liar!
You are a louse with a lot of money.
Only your dittoheads think you're funny.
They have no mind...
Your sheep are blind...
So pugnacious, Limbaugh the Liar!
Right wing crazy!
You're... no good!
Right wing crazy!
You always claimed you're misunderstood.
You whined... unkind...
Your sputter proves you've lost your mind, mind, mind, mind...
You need your dittoheads because they are dumb.
You fool your sheep, repeating lies like a drum.
Their minds are lazy...
You right wing crazy...
So pugnacious, Limbaugh the Liar!
(instrumental break)
Right wing crazy!
You're... no good!
Right wing crazy!
You always claimed you're misunderstood.
You whined... unkind...
Your sputter proves you've lost your mind, mind, mind, mind...
You need your dittoheads because they are dumb.
You fool your sheep, repeating lies like a drum.
Their minds are lazy...
You right wing crazy...
So pugnacious, Limbaugh the Liar!
-
In regards to the original post, in society it are always the ones that serve society the most who are given the least in return from society. Not only in the military but also in law enforcement, medical and social care etc. and not to forget voluntary and semi-voluntary jobs. These are also the same people who are exposed to the highest risks, levels of stress and fysical and emotional burdens while working, and still are amongst the lower salaries. Something to remember and to respect, however also something that probably will never change...
-
miko2d has it right guys - there are some damn good people in the military. Others not so good, patriotic, etc. But they still do their job well, and to their buddies in the military they are like 'my as*hole younger brother - I hate him but I still have to look out for him because he's my brother'.
Ever heard of the quote 'break glass in case of war'. That explains some of these types. As human beings they are pretty reprehensible (from a standpoint of being moral and/or being enlightened). But reprehensible or not they deserve credit for the work they do. Maybe they choose such a line of work because it's one of the only places they can 'fit in', who knows? That's a topic for a book.
There was some quote about it from ancient Greece or some similar culture from a similar era - it was from a speech during that time's relevant 'remembrance day'...the part of the speech I'm talking about went something like this:
"...they were not perfect men by any means, but in that moment where all risked and many gave their lives for the future of their countrymen, they were raised to a level where their personal faults no longer matter and have forever been forgiven."
If anyone has that origional speech, I'd love a link to it/more data about it. It from an ancient Greek-like era.
Miko2d do me a favor email me at wulfie14@hotmail.com so I can get an email address for you.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Well, if you want to knock someone's teeth off under false pretext of patriotism, you may still bother to find a more plausible reason that at least has something to do with what I said.
If a patriot that volunteered and waded ashore on Tarawa is still serving in our professional army, he is included among the three patriots I've mentioned.
I was in combat. Fooling myself about motivations and characters of my comrades would have gotten me killed - likely in very unpleasant ways. I credit my native intelligence and strength of character with my ability to face ugly reality, but my military service was like having a Ph.D. in that subject.
miko [/B]
Most of the guys I served with, (many more than three) just wanted to get home in one piece. The few who expressed the 'let's go kill somebody' mentality unduely exposed themselves to the enemy and usually did not last the tour.
So your motivation was one of the desire to murder?
get some counseling.
-
Originally posted by Thud
In regards to the original post, in society it are always the ones that serve society the most who are given the least in return from society. Not only in the military but also in law enforcement, medical and social care etc. and not to forget voluntary and semi-voluntary jobs. These are also the same people who are exposed to the highest risks, levels of stress and fysical and emotional burdens while working, and still are amongst the lower salaries. Something to remember and to respect, however also something that probably will never change...
That's because there's the golden rule.
-
Can you hear that?
Ripsnort is challenged on the very topic he bangs on most about and makes the best reply he has ever made.
Sir, your eloquent silence speaks volumes.
I find it quite amusing that the man who talks so much about how he "flies the flag everyday like a true patriot" then goes onto to criticize (in quite a deliberate manner) the motives of someone preserving his freedom. You've never even been near a uniform!
-
You know I don't know where you read that someone who serves in the military automatically has an unarguable opinion.
I am in the military, and have been for a long time. I like both fd-ski and rip1.
So rip1 doesn't like what fd-ski has to say. How does this make him hipocritical?
Not using fd-ski as an example here at all - but there are guys in the military who 'defend freedom' and they still have lots of screwed up ideas.
Just because you do one honorable thing doesn't mean you are:
1. Never wrong.
2. Cannot be argued with.
3. Etc., etc., etc.
If you asked fd-ski about it he probably appreciated rip1's support for the military (Heaven knows that can be a rarity in some parts of the U.S.A.), and him disagreeing with rip1 on some topic is a separate issue entirely.
Mike/wulfie
-
You know you have a point there wulfie. I find myself often agreeing with the sorts of things you have to say. Lead the way wulfie lead the way.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Would military even want people that were drafted against their will?
NO!!
-
My guess is that he was making the point that if everyone is going to pay taxes to support the government, then they should have the right to have a voice in that government
Lotsa of folks pay taxes and have little to no voice in the government. Some by choice some by status. But in the points I made there was no restriction on who could "choose" to participate in the Nation. There was, however, a reward for those who did choose to serve.
So I am still confused as to why we would roll back the 16th amendment.......
I would be all for it but in the context of this discussion it seems rather an odd point.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Look at the volunteers. Look where the vast majority come from. Now look at the legislators and corporate interests. The latter are the elite. They really have no reason to care about the people that might sacrifice their very lives in service of this country's interests.
Imagine how much they'd care if it were their own kids out on the tip of the sword.
Seem's you have a good point wedged between a bad idea and a hard-place.
-
I can't complain over the compensation I've gotten for serving. I got the GI Bill, at the time 220.00 a month in 1974, I get free medical care for life, plus I got a no-down VA loan to buy my house. I'm also eligible for dozens of other programs but I'm too lazy to inquire about them all. There's even scholarships for kids of vets I think.
I injured my back pretty severely about a month before my scheduled release date and couldn't pass the pre-release physical. LOL Hell, I couldn't even walk. I spent my last month in the service in traction in a hospital. They discharged me after my time was up but kept me in a VA hospital (Fort Miley in SF) until I was able to walk again. (bout 6 months.) I was given a 100% disability pension that was reduced to 0% as I was reevaluated monthly and my back gradually improved. Unfortunately my reevaluation was at Fort Miley every month after I became an outpatient.
I cannot begin to recount just what a horrible place that VA hospital was in 73-74. Many of the Vets there were missing limbs or were paralized, so the staff's main job was to train the vets to get used to the idea of going through life in a wheelchair or without eyesight or whatever. Viet Nam had only been Hell for moments at a time- Fort Miley was Hell every friggin day and was the most horrible place any of you could imagine. Now it's actually pretty nice, but 30 years ago it was a hell hole.
Now that I've depressed myself for the whole friggin day, we were talking bout vet benefits? I've been treated pretty good by the VA. The best benefit is the VA loan for homebuying. People are under the mistaken assumption you can only use it one time, but as long as your previous VA loan is repaid in full you can get a new VA certificate. I offer this up as food for thought for you Vets who might want to reconsider refinancing with a lower rate VA loan. That or any other questions bout vet benefits e-mail me and I'll share what knowledge I have on how to get them.
-
Holden McGroin: Most of the guys I served with, (many more than three) just wanted to get home in one piece. The few who expressed the 'let's go kill somebody' mentality unduely exposed themselves to the enemy and usually did not last the tour.
You are confusing motivation with competence and other character traits. Incompetent people have a much greater chance of getting killed in a war whether they are murderous or not.
It is not my impression that murderous people are more lax in matters of personal safety than peace-loving people of equal competence. Those I knew would prefer and try to kill an enemy with minimum risk.
There is no general rule but a 'murderous' person is more likely to exercise his military skills and maintain his weaponry while a peace-lover spends time dreaming of home. That affects competency which in turn affects survival.
Also in many situations ''let's go kill somebody" type would be more likely to charge and/or suppres the enemy with fire rather than hide - or stick our and cover a trusted mate so that he could return favor later and those actions may be very beneficial to survival in short and long term respectively.
I am not even talking about an extreme utility of anti-social persons for certain survival-critical tasks that are almost impossible for normal people to perform even after considerable character degradation caused by war with implacable enemy, stress, lack of sleep and female company.
So your motivation was one of the desire to murder? get some counseling.
Where is this coming from? You've just admitted to exactly as much as I did - serving with and knowing 'let's go kill somebody" types. And neither of the categories you've mentioned includes a "patriot" type which I at least assume to exist if not in large numbers.
How does that make me one with "the desire to murder" as opposed to you? Just because I am on the opposite side of the argument regarding prevalence of patriots in the army, I must be a murderer? What if I were one? There is no information in my posts to indicate that I was but plenty to indicate that I was not. Starting with my present occupation.
Why don't you stop personal insults and tell me how many soldiers of those you personally knew were serving out of patriotism?
I've known none in Soviet Union and none among serving/former soldiers I know here in US. That's my experience.
I do not believe that there is a single guy serving in US army today who would think "I could succeed in business - as a lawyer or broker or businessman, etc, drive a cool car, have a great house and plenty of money, enjoy myself and not give a damn about the country like everybody I see. But no - I will reluctantly enroll so that I can guard peace and quiet and way of life of those guys so that they continue enjoying their lifes and not care about serving themselves".
People enroll in peacetime because they like the job (or what they expect it to be - which is quite different), because they cannot get anything better or for few other reasons. Patriotism is almost never one of them.
miko