Senate Democrats

Obama Fan Published:

You know Obama's famous words "we must act and we must act now without delay"  he said that about the stimulus and healthcare and has said the same thing about the VA scandal.  Well a bill was introduced to put a temporay fix on the VA problem.  Passed the house with flying colors.   Who blocks it? Senate dummocrats and an independent.  One reason;  needs more time to read a THREE page bill.   I wonder if those who voted no on helping veterans read the 1,100 page healthcare bill?  Why not Nancy Pelosi it and pass it then read it later?  This is a disgrace to our veterans!!!

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • "Spouting off about stuff you know nothing about is traditionally considered unwise. But as the Republican war on science intensifies, ignorance has started to become not only less of a handicap, but a point of pride. In the face of expertise and facts, being belligerently ignorant—and offended that anyone dare suggest ignorance is less desirable than knowledge—has become the go-to position for many conservative politicians and pundits. Sadly, it’s a strategy that’s working, making it harder every day for liberals to argue the value of evidence and reason over wishful thinking and unblinking prejudice.

    But for modern Republicans, being downright proud of their ignorance has become a badge of honor, a way to demonstrate loyalty to the right-wing cause while also sticking it to those liberal pinheads who think there’s some kind of value in knowing what they’re talking about before offering an opinion.

    This mentality, in its modern form, can be traced back to the Bush White House. In 2004, Ron Suskind of the New York Times interviewed an unnamed Bush official who famously pooh-poohed what he believed to be the shortcomings of journalists who insist that the truth matters more than fantasy:

    The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

    The sense that you could stick it to the liberals by being utterly indifferent to reality actually grew worse on the right after Bush left office, starting with the adoption of Sarah Palin as a right-wing hero. Palin represents this new era of treating the truth like it’s a horrible force of oppression trying to squelch conservative America. Subsequently, any utterance from her mouth is far more likely to be a blatant and aggressive falsehood than anything resembling fact.

    The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance works surprisingly well as a debate tactic. It’s hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn’t care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down.

    Take Rep. Jeff Miller’s recent appearance on MSNBC. It was a performance that has become standard on the right when talking about climate change: Dismissively wave away the scientific consensus and spout ignorance in the most condescending tone possible, as if nothing could be sillier than those scientists with their interests in facts and research. Miller repeatedly dismissed decades of scientific research showing the reality of global warming as “foolish.” Then he went above and beyond the call of duty, really showing off how proud he was to know so very little. “Then why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Were there men that were causing — were there cars running around at that point, that were causing global warming? No,” he said, full of contempt for people who aren’t nearly as stupid as he is.

    If Miller wasn’t such a major idiot, he would know that, in fact, the death of the dinosaurs was caused by an outside force that disrupted the Earth’s atmosphere; not cars, but a meteor that hit the planet with such impact it caused a massive cooling and then—wait for it—major global warming effect that wiped out 70% of the species on the planet. It’s one of the major reasons we know that outside forces, whether meteors or cars, that have major impact on the planet’s atmosphere can create temperature changes that permanently affect life on this planet.

    The problem here is that someone who is not only so catastrophically wrong but downright proud of being an ignoramus is not going to actually bother to listen to an explanation like that. That’s why the wall of ignorance is such a powerful rhetorical tool. When you have nothing but contempt for the facts, attempts to educate you will only make your pride in your own ignorance grow stronger. The more you try to educate the proudly ignorant, the dumber they get.

    At the end of the day, the problem is one of identity. The conservative identity is one of being opposed to everything liberal, to the point of despising anything even associated with liberalism. As liberalism has increasingly been aligned with the values of empiricism and reason, the incentives for conservatives to reject empiricism and reason multiply. To be a “conservative” increasingly means taking a contemptuous view of reality. And so the proudly ignorant grow more belligerent, day after day."

    Amanda Marcotte is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer and journalist. She's published two books and blogs regularly at Pandagon, RH Reality Check and Slate's Double X.

  • "One day you're gonna run up on the wrong person and get an attitude adjustment. Maybe that way you'd get a total different outlook on things and people."

    I can only hope that it is someone who loves pigs as much as ewe.

  • There was no Declaration of War against the country of Afghanistan.

     One can tell you have a big problem reading English. This is what I said: . Declaration of War for Afghanistan.. Resolution for Iraq. Nope I pretty much know the differences.

    Nowhere have I said a Declaration against Afghanistan. You have lumped the 2 together is some febile minded attempt that both wars are/were predicated on lies.

    I'm done with your ignorance. You manage to do nothing constructive. I get all worked up over what? A person that hdes behind a computer, makes things up, insults , then gets me involved insulting back. 

    I believe your goals are to create as much discourse as possible and incite as much negativity as possible.

    I think you are compensating for your poor judgements in the past and act out towards those who are different and differ from you.

    One day you're gonna run up on the wrong person and get an attitude adjustment. Maybe that way you'd get a total different outlook on things and people.

    I pray that God keeps you safe from harm, if not He teaches you a lesson as he has with me.

    I've also found your source of infornation that you have been using in this post, and honestly if more people posting here would do as I have in researching some of the key words you use, pretty soon you'd crawl away from shame.

    ROTFLMAO.....Here's the part of a blog post from Francis A. Boyle's little rant after apperaing on O' Reily 2 days after 9/11 that you used to make a rebuttal.. of course this is nothing new for you to do.

    An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. Indeed, just recently FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publicly admitted that they have found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. If you believe the government's account of what happened, which I think is highly questionable, 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan. It does not really add up in my opinion.

     

    And I do not believe that he is known as Bush Jr. other than this a$$hat referring to him as that. His name is George Walker Bush.. His father is George Herbert Walker Bush.

     

     Francis A. Boyle

    (The author served as Legal Advisor: to the Palestine Liberation Organization on Creation of the State of Palestine (1987-1989), to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations (1991-1993) and sometime to the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. The viewpoints expressed here are his own.)

    To bad there isn't a real Palestinian state. And there will not ever be. Praise God for protecting Israel and the Jewish people.

     

     

  • There was no Declaration of War against the country of Afghanistan.

     One can tell you have a big problem reading English. This is what I said: . Declaration of War for Afghanistan.. Resolution for Iraq. Nope I pretty much know the differences.

    Nowhere have I said a Declaration against Afghanistan. You have lumped the 2 together is some febile minded attempt that both wars are/were predicated on lies.

    I'm done with your ignorance. You manage to do nothing constructive. I get all worked up over what? A person that hdes behind a computer, makes things up, insults , then gets me involved insulting back. 

    I believe you goals are to create as much discourse as possible and incite as much negativity as possible.

    I think you are compensating for your poor judgements in the past and act out towards those who are different and differ from you.

    One day you're gonna run up on the wrong person and get an attitude adjustment. Maybe that way you'd get a total different outlook on things and people.

    I pray that God keeps you safe from harm, if not He teaches you a lesson as he has with me.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Not really wanting to get into this p*ssing contest, but we didn't go to war WITH the country of Afghanistan.  We attacked Al-Qaida IN the country of Afghanistan.  Just sayin'.

  • pitch - As usual, your comments here are overly emotionally charged, with the intellectual level uniformly low.

    There was no Declaration of War against the country of Afghanistan.  Period.  And there was good reasons why there was no Declaration of War made. The attacks of 9/11 were not an act of war as traditionally defined. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. In fact, FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publically admitted that they found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan, whihc is why our attack on Afghanistan was ILLEGAL!  Clearly these were acts of terrorism as defined by United States domestic law at the time.

  • It appears you are the one with the nuance gene deficiency. Your stance has been previously argued and lost. Declaration of War for Afghanistan.. Resolution for Iraq. Nope I pretty much know the differences.

    READ THIS REALLY SLOW...

    For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. 

    Then read this EVEN SLOWER

    The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Bush said: "The text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

    You can have sex with a pig all that you want...I am very tolerant

     Tolerence is not in your tool box bubba. And the taking of another mans wife is forbidden. Thank you anyway but I'll pass.

    .to the great detriment of our country and military, not to mention our economy.

    OUR?.... OUR?.... OUR?..... Since when does a spineless cowardly wide eyed-Socialist make claims like this yet agrees with the detrimental policies of a Socialist kinsmen like the messiah? 

    Think you are suffering with dyslexia.There are tests that can help you find out of you are. I suggest you make an appointment using your Obama Care Insurance to take one and take it soon before it's not coverd.

  • But the fact is that even though the war powers says it could have, Congress DID NOT DECLARE WAR for either Iraq or Afghanistan...something that should be obvious if you only had a nuance gene. Those pesky details always get in your way of making a point, don't they? Call it nit pickin if'n you like, but that is what law is all about.  I feel sorry for you too, but then again, I have an empathy gene too.

    There were no Declarations of War for either conflict...there was an Iraq Resolution which is were you are getting cornfused...but it ain't the same thing.  And it had recommendations for the order of things with invading dead last.  Boosh and co. ignored them all...to the great detriment of our country and military, not to mention our economy.

    You can have sex with a pig all that you want...I am very tolerant.

     

  • I'll take the facts anyday....that is all that I argue. I know all about the War Powers Clause, but that has nothing to do with this since war was not declared by Congress in either conflict

    Think you better go have a lookies at this then:

    Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military, and the militia (i.e. the National Guard) "when called into the actual Service of the United States" (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war

    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    Seante 98-0 House 420-1 pretty good indications again that Afghanistan was a Declared War by Congress and not President Bush.

    Boosh done it on his own.  These were Boosh's wars.

    This has nothing to do with the UN actions pretaining to Iraq. Since you want to throw both wars into the pot and saying both are lies told by President Bush educating you on the unanimous actions of both the Senate and House pretaining to Afghanistan and the full Declaration of War passed by both. The president didn't have to ask for it.. Congress already did that for him.

    everything but the truth that it was all about breaking the hold on its nationalized oil reserves to open it up to the oil companies to exploit. ALL of the reasons given to Congress have been proven false and lies.

    This conspiracy theory of getting to Iraq's oil is nothing but that. A conspiracy theory. Something you dabble in quite frequently

    I did NOT have sex with your pig...for the record.

    I don't mess around with another mans wife.

  • I did NOT have sex with your pig...for the record.

  • Nit pick...either something is a fact or it is just someone's dumb opinon.  I'll take the facts anyday...that is all that I argue.  I know all about the War Powers Clause, but that has nothing to do with this since war was not declared by Congress in either conflict...Boosh done it on his own.  These were Boosh's wars.

    The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

    The Iraq Resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." 

    The reason we call it an "illegal" war is because he GOT that approval under false pretenses by saying a whole litany of lies including but not limited to that they had WMD, that they were trying to buy yellow cake in Africa, that they had tried to purchase aluminum tubes to make rockets, they was a connection to Al Qaeda, everything but the truth that it was all about breaking the hold on its nationalized oil reserves to open it up to the oil companies to exploit. ALL of the reasons given to Congress have been proven false and lies.

  •  A declaration of war is a formal act by which one nation goes to war against another

    Wanna nit pick ok.. Guess you're not ever heard of a little thing called War Powers Clause have you?

    United States Constitution Art. 1, Sect. 8, Clause 11, which vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. They don't need to be asked to do so since the political body of liberal states are the only bodies to have power to do so.

    Terrorists are criminals they have no change of command to be held accountable. You should know this stuff since I believe you have personal knowledge of the on goings within a terrorists group, or cells if you prefer that tag line.

    SO I believe asking Congress and the House to vote whether or not to go after terrorists and you get Senate vote of 98-0 and House vote of 420-1 that pretty much gives the indication that a Declaration of War was asked for and granted.

    See it doesn't take the president asking, like you keep running through you mind of FDR doing, It simply takes something like the cowardly act of 9/11. 

    And since you're just a visitor, more like a trouble maker to be honest, I'll over look your ignorance. I forgive you for your stupidity, but will not forgive for you insultive disrespectful attitude towards our ways and country. 

    You don't like it here, or what's going on, or how things are argued against, you are always FREE to leave and return to that pit of a land you call home.

    Say hello to your wife the pig for me will ya?

  • That was no Declaration of War, pitch.  Declarations of War are a whole different animal...to those of us who have the nuance gene.  There was no Declaration of War in Iraq or Afghanistan.  A declaration of war is a formal act by which one nation goes to war against another. Period. You can put lipstick on that pig all that you want to, but in the end you are still gonna be having sex with a pig.

  • This isn't about undocumented workers...it is about properly funding the VA 

    It most certainly is about funding for ILLEGALS and taking money from departments like the Veterans Affairs in order to keep doing that. Increaseing taxes has always been a Democratic view on how to get things done, not responsible fiscal policies. The push back from democrats over having to show valid ID when voting drives a spike into the foundation of how democrats get voted in by ILLEGALS and PAYING for those votes.

    That's why the messiah isn't interested in securing the borders and his justifications for leaving AMERICANS in the hands of the legal system of Mexican authorities so there would be secured votes for democrats.

    BTW according to Jay-the parrot-Carney funding for the VA hasn't been an issue. The mesiah just simply throws money at problems hoping they fix themselves. He should stick to community organizing,. He sucz at being a president. Worse than Carter ever was...

  • Do you really "love" it...I mean really, really enough to eat it with a big serving of crow?

    DO you have your bibb, knife anf fork ready? Dinner is about to be served.

    According to  Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution it gives Congress the powers to Declare War, yet there is no formal format of lanugage,or legislation pretaining to using the words "Declarationtion of War".

    As a matter of fact the action DOE.v. BUSH that the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals heard gave teeth for the justifications under Bush to go to war with Afghanistan and by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House you can't get better approvals than that for getting a Declaration of War by Congress. You want to mention lies being used to get America in a war, then I pretty sure you must be including LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin reason as proof that lies get people killed in an unjust war. Right?

    As for Iraq, there were many, many Democrats that agreed with the Bush administration, Hillary being one of his stronger supporters that went into Iraq on the information provided to them by previous administrations which was Clinton and Bush '41'.

    Bush'41' I feel had the best Intel since that administration actually did have Jus ad bellum to give support to Kuawit to over throw an Iraqi invading military action and used extreme measures of Jus in bello to ensure the administrations just actions. Bush '41' was actually more on the lines of a declaration of justice more than a war.

    The president can and will always have the authority to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war , which has only been asked five times since the forming of the Constitution, yet the president doesn't need Congressional approval.

    You know like that of the actions taken by president Harry Truman (D) and the Korean War, or for a better term used, the "Forgotten War" that my father fought and got wounded in all for what? A divided country that the United States is still actively involved in today as a full military act of war.

    And if you feel that strongly that our politicans should be brought up on international charges then you gotta throw Hillary and every Democrat that voted for war both times in there as well. Also let's not forget the messiah and his Libyan actions that resulted in the murder of four Americans. 

    As I said, I know you don't like throwing your own kind under the bus so I'll help out whenever I can. 

  • beegee428, May 27, 2014 4:14PM

    "I love how you always call it "Boosh's War", but the President can't declare war, only Congress, and that includes your precious Dems."

    Do you really "love" it...I mean really, really enough to eat it with a big serving of crow? Because neither the Iraq nor the Afghanistan wars were ever declared by Congress. They were Boosh's dumb wars all right!  Dumb wars predicated on lies.  Boosh and Co. should be brought up on international charges over the Iraq war.

    It is odd that Boosh, who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.
     

    Crow is best eaten while warm...

  • I love how you always call it "Boosh's War", but the President can't declare war, only Congress, and that includes your precious Dems.

  • Any Democrat that makes a Faustian bargain with the Republicans on this issue of cutting/not extending the funding for our vets, especially with the way that they are being mistreated now and REGARDLESS of the flimsy excuse for (not) doing it, is to be condemned.  The kicker is that only those very few who are in red districts and are up for an election in November are doing it.

    This isn't about undocumented workers...it is about properly funding the VA to take care of all of those old Viet Nam vets and both of Boosh's stupid wars that Obama is ending.  And you know it.

  • Ryan’s op-ed is devoted to defending his decision to cut $6 billion worth of military pensions

    IN case it slipped your mind.. Senator Patty Murray (D)...Is the second name on this that also agreed to these cuts...

    I know, I know you don't like throwing your own kind under the bus,so I'll do it for you...

    February 11, 2014----Democrats killed a proposal from New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte to pay for the spending increase by reducing fraudulent unemployment benefits for illegal aliens. 

    Of course this was off from the House overturning the COLA cuts from the Ryan-Murray deal and a smart way to pay for increases, but Democrats want to keep control and the only way is to buy votes even from illegals....

    Hope the bus comes back this way again..

  • Ryan’s op-ed is devoted to defending his decision to cut $6 billion worth of military pensions. 

  •  Just look at how yhou continuously vote against your own economic self interests

    Oh I have no worries about my economic situation. I'm not a cowarding Socialist, I actually work for a living versus a visitor that comes here with their handout expecting others to take care of them like you.

    Have a nice day...take a really good long walk with the dog, that will clear your head

     I do.. Perhaps you'll be stupid enough one eveing to roll up on us...I'd use extreme caution though.. Just some FYI...My dog isn't as understanding as I am of stupid people. He has no tolerence for them....At all period...

  • Ryan publicly defended cutting all other veterans’ pension benefits. Ryan took to the pages of USA Today to write an op-ed defending his decision to include cuts to vets’ benefits in the budget deal. "One part of the bill has become particularly controversial: the reduction in cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for working-age military retirees,” Ryan wrote. “The federal government has no greater obligation than to keep the American people safe and we must take care of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line. For that reason, Congress is understandably hesitant to make changes to military compensation.

    "But even hesitance has a cost," he claimed.

    Ryan added that the need for such cuts is “undeniable,” citing recent comments from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel about Department of Defense budget concerns. “Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a combat vet himself, has said ‘that we can no longer put off military compensation reform. DOD's leadership, Chairman Dempsey, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, and myself, we all know that we need to slow cost growth in military compensation. Otherwise, we'll have to make disproportionate cuts to military readiness and modernization,’” Ryan wrote.

    It's when you put all the pieces of the puzzle together that you see exactly what's going on, and not just snippets here and there to make a point.

    On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came out in support of a plan pushed by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that would restore the vets’ pensions cuts by closing a loophole that allows illegal aliens access to tax credits. Sessions’ idea has the backing of moderates like Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and scores of Senate Republicans and many members of the House GOP conference as well. Reps. Martha Roby (R-AL) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) offered a bill in December which would do just that: close a loophole allowing illegal aliens access to the Refundable Child Tax Credit to pay for restoring veterans’ pension cuts.

     It appears that the Democrats had some cards up their sleeves as well. Allowing illegals to gain illegally yet neither one of you has mentioned this like snippet of information. So illegals working here, not paying any taxes gets a tax credit..ummmm. Makes you ponder the pecking order doesn't it. Do we harm Veterans or pi$$ off illegals that won't illegally vote democrat next election?

    It doesn't take an Einstien to figure out a budget that one should adhere to when you have limited funds, but Democrats seem to think the way around all that, and make sure everyone gets a trophy, is give everybody everything and just increase taxes.. Illegals gaining illegally and then you see who suffers for it. Then people like you 2 want to sit and throw fits C&P snippets to prove your point while ignoring all the FACTS.

    DO I think the cuts were wrong? NO. Working age retiree's that have a steady private paycheck and retired military benefits versus disabled Veterans, or service-connected injured Veterans, are more able to provide for themsleves and their families than the injured Veteran. That's what really the VA was set up for in the first place..

    With the words, “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his 
    widow, and his orphan,” President Lincoln affirmed the government’s obligation 
    to care for those injured during the war and to provide for the families of those 
    who perished on the battlefield.

    You two would rather be selfish and greedy instead of economically smart and resourceful to ensure that the widow and orphaned children of a service member killed, or one who has sustained injuries receive increases annually to care for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and ensure their families are taken care of as best as possible.

    I don't see a "BTW those who can work that have served and now draw a retirement check, let's make sure they get as much or more to be fair and equal"..

    There's nothing fair about a Veteran that can work gets a private paycheck and draws a retirement check and has no worries versus the injured or disable Veteran that is scraping by.

    Or are you two going to disagree with that?

  • pitch: "Don't post BS about a subject you have absolutely NO EPXERIENCE with... "

    Why not, you do it all the time?  And frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a dam about your heavily right-wing biased ancecdotal experience.  Your fact base is so out of whack with reality, it is worthless. Just look at how yhou continuously vote against your own economic self interests. 

    Have a nice day...take a really good long walk with the dog, that will clear your head.

  • There he was.  There was South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on camera in front of reporters railing and complaining about the budget agreement worked out by Senators Ryan and Murray.  Standing behind him were three tough looking Veterans in Veterans of Foreign Wars hats.  Presumably they are there to support Senator in his complaint about the budget and to point out the cuts in it to Veteran benefits. 

    The problem here is the Veterans standing behind Senator Graham are, I would guess, of a Republican bent as they are supporting a Republican in his complaint about the budget.  However, cuts to entitlements and social programs are the bailiwick of the Republicans not the Democrats.  These Veterans and any Veterans, who support Republican economic policy, are voting for the very people who want to cut Veteran benefits along with any social support programs they can get their hands on.

    Talk about voting against yourself!  I sincerely hope that the day is not far off when my fellow Brother and Sister Veterans wake up and realize that the Republican Party is using our patriotism and loyalty to aid them in the Party’s quest to restrict the financial power of the Federal Government and make it ineffectual in reining in the excesses and inequality of the free market, a policy that weakens the very Government that many are, right now, giving their lives to protect.  At the same time Republicans are cutting the very benefits Republicans claim to be protecting!

    These Legislators were quite eager to send our young men into their wars with cries of, “USA”, “USA”!  Now Republicans want us to support them as they, with smiles on their faces and fingers crossed behind their backs, attempt, in the name of some failed economic policy, to cut or eliminate the benefits these courageous men and women are entitled to.

    Kind of like the Martin Niemoller thing about, ‘ They came for the Socialists and I said nothing because  I was not a socialist’, except with benefits.  They came for food stamps but I do not use food stamps so I said nothing.  When they came for Veterans benefits there was no one who would speak out for us because we did not speak out for them.

    Remember Romney’s 47% comment?   That 47% of the people would not vote for him, as he said, the 47% who are takers.   Well Veterans who receive benefits and retirement are in that 47%!  Let us not forget that the Republican cry to cut entitlements includes Veterans.  Time to wake up and get smarter about who we think we are supporting!!!

  •  An overview of Rand Corporation studies found that the VA outperformed private hospitals on many counts, and concluded the agency has much to teach the private sector when it comes to providing managed care.

    You're so full of shat your eyes are brown.. DO you go to any VA? If not then how bout you STFU since you have no idea what VA can or does right. When I finally get back to full time work, and able to get the RIGHT kind of health insurance, none of that Obama care bullshat, I'll finally be able to get the correct medical attention I need. All fooken VA wants to do is pump me full of cortisone shots and keep making excuses that I'm to young for total knee replacements. All with having full knowledge that I can hardly walk as it is now. Then keep screwing over Vets left and right day in and day out.

    Don't post BS about a subject you have absolutely NO EPXERIENCE with just to make a negative statement about FOX NEWS and Republicans. That's all you're doing.

    People like you give me a case of the a$$ spewing your brand of intelligence and the more you talk about a subject you have no idea about the stupider you keep getting.

    Put your head back up your a$$.. You're safer that way....

     

     

  • Someday the Republicans and Fox News will be outraged enough about our treatment of veterans that they will agree to do something about it. 

    There’s real trouble at the VA, but there’s bigger trouble for the Republican Party, which purports to love veterans but does little to help them. Thom Hartman recently ran down the list of pro-veteran measures the GOP has blocked. Earlier this year Senate Republicans filibustered a bill to boost VA funding by $21 billion and restore military pensions cut in the Murray-Ryan budget deal. They opposed President Obama’s $1 billion jobs bill to put unemployed vets to work in 2012. They’ve killed bills to help homeless veterans and promote vets’ entrepreneurship.

    And in the current crisis, there’s yet to be a genuine GOP answer to the problems at the VA, beyond anti-Obama grandstanding. Do they want to voucherize veterans’ health care, like they do Medicare? Abolish the VA entirely? “Privatize” it, whatever that would mean?

    The VA has  real problems, but they predate Obama, and they’re largely the result of fighting two wars started by Bush while Vietnam veterans age. Right now the VA serves almost 10 million vets, and as retired Col. Christopher Holshek writes today in the Huffington Post, Shinseki’s Department of Veterans Affairs has actually reduced the care back log from 600,000 when he took over to somewhere near 320,000. It’s still too high, but it’s also wrong to say the VA does nothing right.An overview of Rand Corporation studies found that the VA outperformed private hospitals on many counts, and concluded the agency has much to teach the private sector when it comes to providing managed care.

  • Yep it was a disgrace when the Reps fillibustered the Vet bill just weeks ago. Short term memory much?

    It was a Vets jobs bill.  You know as well as I that no bill is a single item document. Normally, the bills are larded up with a hodgepodge of other items. So, I have to ask what was the poison pill in the aforementioned bill?

    From Militaryauthority.com

    "At issue: A Pakistani physician by the name of Shakil Afridi. Afridi was a key informant in the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin. But his identity was compromised, and he is now in a Pakistani prison, where he is serving a 33 year sentence for treason - not, formally, because of his work with the CIA, but because of his connections to another radical Islamist group called Lakshar-e-Islam.

    Senator Paul filibustered the bill, in an attempt to get Congress to add an amendment calling for a cut-off in federal aid to Pakistan unless Dr. Afridi is released.

    Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized the filibuster, saying “My friend from Kentucky should have run for Secretary of State, rather than for Senate.” For his part, Rand says his filibuster was only 15 minutes long.

    After Senator Paul’s filibuster, the Senate did pass a cloture vote 84-8, clearing the way for an up or down vote on the law. Rand then asked for consent to add an amendment to the law cutting off foreign aid to the governments of Egypt and Libya, in the wake of the mob attacks on the two embassies that left one U.S. ambassador and three other staffers in Libya dead. Reid objected.

    And that’s where the bill is now. It will likely pass the Senate:  the Powers that Be are just haggling over the details.

    Watch the gamesmanship: This is not about veterans or jobs at this point. Both parties are jockeying for campaign season rhetoric. Reid would like to blame Senator Paul – and, by extension, the Republicans – for holding American veterans hostage. The Republicans, for their part, would like to paint Reid – and by extension, the Democrats, for being soft on Islamist radicals and failing to hold despotic middle eastern regimes accountable."

    Let the games continue...

  • A bunch of freakin' hypocrites...

    "The Republican Chaos Strategy is working like a charm, and now the GOP is trying to make everyone forget who the real villains are when it comes to denying benefits to our veterans. And the real villains, despite what you might hear over at Fox So-Called news, are all the Republican lawmakers who have repeatedly blocked bills that would have helped out American veterans and given more resources to the VA.

    Republicans don’t really care about veterans or the VA, they just care about using this controversy to discredit the President and his Democratic Party - there is an election coming up, after all - and as a twofer, discredit the idea of government-run healthcare programs like the VA. John McCain has even called for the VA to be privatized. The hypocrisy here is astounding.

    Remember, it was just a little under three months ago that Senate Republicans under the leadership of Mitch McConnell filibustered a bill that would have boosted VA funding by $21 billion, expanded benefits, and repealed a provision of the Murray-Ryan budget deal that slashed military pensions.

    And it wasn’t like this anti-veteran Republican filibuster was some radical break from the past either. Time and time again during the Obama presidency Republicans have either blocked or opposed bills that would have helped out the veterans they’re now claiming to care so much about.

    Back in 2012, for example, GOP senators blocked a $1 billion jobs bill would have helped millions of unemployed veterans find work. And in that same year, Republican opposition also blocked a bill - the so-called Veterans’ Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act - that would have kept veterans’ benefits on par with rising expenses.

    The list goes on. Before that, GOP lawmakers killed the Wounded Veteran Job Security Act, the Veterans Retraining Act of 2009, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, the Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009, the Veterans Business Center Act of 2009, and the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009.

    Every single one of these these bills would have helped veterans and every single one was killed exclusively by Republican opposition. So don't be surprised if I take the GOP’s newfound obsession with veterans’ issues with a big grain of salt. But Republican hypocrisy when it comes to the VA is only part of the story. What we’re really seeing here with the calls for Veterans Affairs Secretary Shinseki to resign and  the bashing of the VA as a whole is one of the best recent examples of what I call the “Republican Chaos Strategy.”"

  • Yep it was a disgrace when the Reps fillibustered the Vet bill just weeks ago. Short term memory much?