Author Topic: Wouded vets told to return signing bonuses (Read 1104 times)

Arlo · « **Reply #30 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:51:07 PM »

Apparently five republican senators figured it out. Are you claiming the rest can't decide what resolution or bill to support the troops requires thier support until there's a press release out a month later? You're right, I need you to go into great detail about this. Especially with all the rhetoric the republican side of the aisle smears their democrat collegues with to score points with the public.

rpm · « **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:52:55 PM »

So why didn't the Republicans put it in their HR and beat the Dems to the punch? Not like they didn't have the opportunity since, according to you, they were the ones to discover this.

It couldn't be because most Republicans have never served a day in the military. That's just looney.

Arlo · « **Reply #32 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:54:50 PM »

They left McCain off the committee.

john9001 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:55:07 PM »

will you guys give it a rest, it is being taken care of.

that is what is important.

Arlo · « **Reply #34 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:57:05 PM »

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

rpm · « **Reply #35 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:59:24 PM »

Pwnage

Ripsnort · « **Reply #36 on:** November 21, 2007, 10:40:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Like I said, they needed (and sought after) this very visible HR. After all, they have a lower approval rating that OJ Simpson had during his murder trial

Quote

But the Democrats who run Congress have an 11 percent job approval rating. Let’s just note that in my polling in 1995, O.J. Simpson was at 16 percent.

Yep, your congress...that you elected Arlo and RPM begged for last year.

VOR · « **Reply #37 on:** November 21, 2007, 10:52:22 PM »

This thread brings a happy, patriotic tear to my eye. It's not about the topic; it's about which party wuvs teh vets more.

Reminds me of the arguments over who contributed the most to the Asian tsunami a couple of years ago. Does the winnar of that argument and this one get a special seat in heaven between jeebus and their favorite political demagogue?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #38 on:** November 21, 2007, 10:55:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
This thread brings a happy, patriotic tear to my eye. It's not about the topic; it's about which party wuvs teh vets more.

Reminds me of the arguments over who contributed the most to the Asian tsunami a couple of years ago. Does the winnar of that argument and this one get a special seat in heaven between jeebus and their favorite political demagogue?

You need not look at further than Arlo's first post on the subject to see who brought that subject up.

rpm · « **Reply #39 on:** November 21, 2007, 11:20:37 PM »

Because the Good Lord knows you've never brought it up, Rip.

BBBB · « **Reply #40 on:** November 22, 2007, 04:59:07 AM »

Ladies, ladies, please. At the end of the night I think we can all agree both sides of the isle, have voted on issues that have hurt our troops as much as they have helped them over the years. This situation is no different.

My question is, if this was a fast drawn bill, late in session. What the hell were all those Dems still doing there? What else was passed though at the last mins of the session?

cpxxx · « **Reply #41 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:55:07 AM »

Reminds me of something that happend here recently. Two volunteer firefighters were killed when the roof collapsed in a blaze. Later when one of their wives went to collect his final payment. She was informed that as he failed to complete the final hour of his callout, due to being dead, they were cutting 40 Euro of his pay.

You really have to wonder sometimes at the mentality of some people in those situations.

Similarly after the Falklands war a wounded British soldier was informed that as he failed to return the rifle he was issued with. The cost was to be deducted from his pay.

Tigeress · « **Reply #42 on:** November 22, 2007, 07:31:05 AM »

I recalled seeing a documentry on the history of the US mistreatment of her war vets...

TIGERESS

below from --> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/229468/the_bonus_army_march_world_war_i_vets.html

"The Bonus Army march took place in June of 1932 where 20,000 veterans set out to urge President Hoover in protest fashion to sign the 1924 "Bonus Bill" which was something that had laid around for eight years since it's original introduction within the Congress in order to give those World War I veterans who had suffered hardships due to the war effort a little supplementary pay. President Hoover feared that this once again was another sign of people leaning on the government too much to cure their ills so when the angry vets came to Washington he dispatched the armed forces and local police to quell the riot. In the end several of the vets ended up passing away in the clash with bayonets (that's what was used) and other weaponry that the police used, injuring several hundred of this country's finest citizens.

The Bonus Army march was significant on several levels. First, it was the final straw in the re-election efforts of Herbert Hoover. Although he was so battered and bruised in a political sense his goose was probably already cooked anyway. The incident was really symbolic of Hoover's term in office because instead of doing something for his own political expediency he stood on principle and dealt with whatever criticism that was laid at his feet. Sometimes you've got to throw your ideology to the wind and know when to use some more benefic and believable rhetoric whether it's true or not. Even Abe Lincoln told a fib or two in his day for the good of the country."

Yknurd · « **Reply #43 on:** November 22, 2007, 08:06:54 AM »

This thread stupidly and eerily reminds me of people arguing over whose NFL football is better than the other.