Skip to comments.
Some military voters may abandon Bush
The State.com [Knight Ridder Newspapers] ^
| March 11, 2004
| WILLIAM DOUGLAS
Posted on 03/13/2004 1:51:11 PM PST by KriegerGeist
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-206 last
To: Squantos
ping
201
posted on
03/14/2004 7:59:28 AM PST
by
B4Ranch
(Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out.)
To: j_tull
If you actually made it to retirement, then where's the disability?
In my case I intended to go for thirty years, but had to retire at 20 years and eight months - I could no longer pass the annual physical. I could no longer work on a vessel, but spent the last few months teaching others to do so until I could no longer do even that.
I did try to reeducate myself after I retired, but for several reasons a decent job was not forthcoming, and E7 retirement is not enough to actually live on. I could no longer work it the field in which I was trained and had twenty years experience - that is why we have the VA disability system; but it was withheld from career military for a century.
I have lot's of friend's drawing a 20-30 year retirement dying to get their additional 50% for their "service connected hearing loss" caused by high dB headphone rock and roll while off duty. I can't hear any better than they, but wasn't willing to claim a lifestyle choice as a service connected disability.
That is not the common case, but is often used as a reason to deny benefits.
I my own case I lost my sight due to early cataracts - too many years of bright sunlight reflected from the water (during my retirement physical the Dr. chewed me out for not wearing sunglasses - which we were not allowed to use - to Hollywood!). I also have severe osteoarthritis in my feet, knees, hips, back, neck, shoulders and wrists from twenty years of wearing combat boots on bouncing and pounding steel decks -we were not allowed to wear deck shoes until the last few years.
By your way of thinking, very few people would ever get any disability awards, as it was probably a life style choice that caused the loss.
To: Geist Krieger
I think President Bush has an electoral edge despite the fact that Senator (John) Kerry has a better military service record, said Loren Thompson, the chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. KERRY HAS A BETTER MILITARY SERVICE RECORD????
BWAAHAHAHAHAHA, the idiots gave themselves away with this one.
Give me a Buh-reak, for Pete's sake.
The liberal, biased, Socialist media is at it again.
Every, and let me repeat here, EVERY Military person I know, active-duty or Reservist, is clearly FOR the re-election of President Bush.
This writer needs to get out of his biased little cubicle and interview real people, the pale-skinner little nerd that he is.
203
posted on
03/14/2004 8:47:59 AM PST
by
TruthNtegrity
(I refuse to call candidates for President "Democratic" as they are NOT. Socialists, actually.)
To: TruthNtegrity
I agree, this is just another fresh load of media bias. I'm active duty military currently enjoying the warm desert sun myself, and while I know a lot of people who aren't overly thrilled with President Bush, I don't know a single one who actually prefers Kerry. Even the few liberal holdouts are very turned off by his shady service record and downright anti-military congressional record.
That having been said, the vast majority of soldiers understand that what we are doing is vital and unavoidable. Most gripes are along the lines of how the war is being conducted, not why. To think that Kerry would do a better job, when he doesn't even think we should be here in the first place (or does he? It's hard to tell with him) is flat out crazy.
204
posted on
03/14/2004 9:02:14 AM PST
by
Steel Wolf
(Statistics show that self abuse often goes unreported.)
To: america-rules
These figures do not include the cost of a supplemental appropriations request expected to be presented to Congress for fiscal year 2003 to cover the war on terrorism and the cost of the likely war against Iraq And that makes a big difference right there, apart from the main budget figures. Bush is going to the congress and asking to pay for the war. During the Clinton administration, OTOH, not a single penny was appropriated (or ever even requested) for The Rapists' thirty-odd military deployments. Bosnia alone cost tens of billions of dollars, all of which had to come out of the Pentagon's regular budget. This is one of the reasons why not a single major weapons system was deployed during those eight years. Many were in the pipes, but the R&D budgets had to be raided to pay for deployments.
205
posted on
03/14/2004 9:35:36 AM PST
by
Stultis
To: Happy2BMe
Evil triumphs when Good Men do nothing. One of my favorite motto's!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-206 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson