Skip to comments.
Bush, Republicans losing support of retired veterans
Knight Ridder ^
| 07-28-03
Posted on 07/28/2003 7:32:04 AM PDT by Brian S
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 481-500 next last
To: exodus
Which President would you consider has the worse record on border control, the one who had no reason to control the border (Clinton), or the one fighting a war caused by enemies slipping through our border to kill Americans?Read Sell Out by David Shippers! The question should be, which one really opened the flood gates, and how?
To: exodus
Some of your statements, I find I can agree with, or at least understand your position.
Even the fact that After 9/11 Bush didn't close the borders.
But, your following commentary, ignores an extremely important point. One that I think people miss all the time.
(Nothing is ever that simple)
So, President Bush should have just closed the borders. That is what YOU would do?
Really?
Then please, first outline all the political, industrial, and economical ramifications of doing so, including loss of business revenue, and which companies would likely suffer most. Then make sure you tell everyone just exactly what will happen, and that it is YOUR DECISION.
Go ahead.
To: woodyinscc
Not one Party or Adm. has changed this law since 1891! And we are in charge of telling them what we do and don't want, or else we won't reelect them. I keep stating this, but no one wants to acknowledge it. IT IS OUR FAULT, and not President Bush's.
I even believe that the whole thing is a statement used out of context to what is going on with the bill. No one seems interested in knowing if there is any other reason for the President wanting to veto it, other than, because he's a meany wants the veterans to suffer.
To: woodyinscc
exodus - Which President would you consider has the worse record on border control, the one who had no reason to control the border (Clinton), or the one fighting a war caused by enemies slipping through our border to kill Americans?
woodyinscc - Read "Sell Out" by David Shippers! The question should be, which one really opened the flood gates, and how? ***************
David Shippers is one of my Heros.
I don't have his book, but I've heard a lot about how the Republicans in the Senate refused to follow up on the good work done in the House.
404
posted on
07/28/2003 7:48:32 PM PDT
by
exodus
To: UCANSEE2
You are so right! It would have played right into the hands of the terrorists, and would have exacerbated further the economic havoc 9/11 caused.
To: jackbill
I don't get folks who post about something they didn't even bother to read. From the article, the subject of this thread: 1. Since 1891, anyone retiring after a full military career has had their retirement pay reduced dollar for dollar for any Veterans Administration checks they get for a permanent service-related disability. However, a veteran who served a two-or-four-year tour does not have a similar reduction in Social Security or private pension. 2. The second complaint is over medical care. After decades of promising free medical care for life to anyone who served for 20 years, the government in the 1990s abandoned the promise in favor of a new system called Tricare. The Tricare system provides medical care, but requires veterans to pay a deductible and does not cover dental, hearing or vision care.
406
posted on
07/28/2003 7:54:45 PM PDT
by
takenoprisoner
(stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
To: woodyinscc
He goes into more then the weak kneed Pubs and the hypocrite dims
He outlines(with fact) the Clinton/Gore/Dorothy Meisner connection on immigration!
To: exodus
See how far off base you are getting?
112 years of history have nothing to do with the fact that Bush says he will veto any increase of veteran's benefits today.
You show me where President Bush says he will veto any increase of veteran's benefits.
I read in the article that he would veto that bill. I am going to find the original plus more sources before I determine my opinion of what is going on with this.
To: SLB
The partial birth abortion ban is in conference. It will pass and will be signed.
409
posted on
07/28/2003 8:03:53 PM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
(http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
To: woodyinscc
Is that satire?
To: All
I'm reading many comments in deference to the retired veterans plight. I don't get it. These people want the veteran lifer to promise his blood spilt if necessary on foreign soils, which he/she does offer for 20-35 plus years...but then they don't believe retired veterans should complain when the promises to them are not kept?
411
posted on
07/28/2003 8:06:36 PM PDT
by
takenoprisoner
(stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
To: UCANSEE2
Is that satireNo I was answering your rhetorical question to exodus.
To: UCANSEE2
Some of your statements, I find I can agree with, or at least understand your position. Even the fact that After 9/11 Bush didn't close the borders. But, your following commentary, ignores an extremely important point. One that I think people miss all the time. (Nothing is ever that simple)
So, President Bush should have just closed the borders. That is what YOU would do? Really?
Then please, first outline all the political, industrial, and economical ramifications of doing so, including loss of business revenue, and which companies would likely suffer most. Then make sure you tell everyone just exactly what will happen, and that it is YOUR DECISION.
Go ahead. ***************
The political ramification is that Vicente Fox wouldn't be Bush's special friend anymore. There would be no industrial ramifications at all. Economically, smuggling would be almost completely destroyed, and the prices of those smuggled goods would go through the roof.
What you've said makes sense only if you assume that a large part of our commerce avoids posted border crossings. Making sure that every person coming into our country goes through a checkpoint instead of slinking though the woods and desert would not hurt our economy.
And if it did hurt our economy? Isn't everyone telling me "We Are At War?"
If we're not in danger from immigrants, why do we have to put up with the restrctions on our freedom legislated by the Patriot Act?
Our citizens are a serious danger to their own country, but even after 9-11, illegal aliens are harmless?
413
posted on
07/28/2003 8:16:42 PM PDT
by
exodus
To: UCANSEE2
If you will do a simple google search you can find all the articles relating to Bush's threats to veto the veterans' bill.
search words: bush military retirees
414
posted on
07/28/2003 8:23:02 PM PDT
by
takenoprisoner
(stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
To: exodus
OK. I just went back and reread the entire article.
Instead of just taking the sentences that make Bush look bad, I read from beginning to end, and you know what? I get a different story.
First off, by vetoing the bill, President Bush is not denying anyone anything (that they haven't had for 212 years).
Further on in the article, they state just what President Bush is doing to help the veterans.
It is one thing to not have read the article, and be ignorant of what is going on.
It is something else to have read it, tell others to read it, and to have only read and remembered the parts that support your side of the issue. I think that is called having BLINDERS ON
All the arguements about Bush denying veterans their rightful benefits are hogwash.
What BUSH did promise the Veterans is being done in smaller pieces and more efficient ways.
Don't suppose the line in the article about how the cost of that BILL was ridiculous and not anywhere within reason or budget considerations meant anything to you.
You didn't mention that in your remarks.
To: UCANSEE2
All the arguements about Bush denying veterans their rightful benefits are hogwashYes, the source Knight-Ridder probably says it all. Just another liberal example of selective, biased journalism.
To: woodyinscc
OK. Thanks. Just wanted to make sure I understood your response, as there is no voice inflection here on FR. KNOW WHAT AH MEEN????
To: takenoprisoner
Instead of that, I just went to the website where the original is, and read it.
Turns out that , apparently, most have not read the whole article, or are ignoring most of it's contents.
To: UCANSEE2
Career military, some who are also disabled veterans have reductions in their SS checks because they also receive
pay as a disabled veteran. Mind you, they paid into the SS system just like anyone else. They should be entitled to all payments of their SS like anyone else...rather than having it reduced because they receive another check for their service connected disability.
If someone becomes disabled and receives a benefit from an insurance company which they had paid into for years to cover such, should there also be reductions in their SS because they receive this additional benefit?
419
posted on
07/28/2003 8:36:23 PM PDT
by
takenoprisoner
(stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
To: woodyinscc
In this case, even though the BITCH info is at the top of the article, (about as far as most readers get.) the truth is contained later in the article. Apparently, most of those arguing the side of BUSH DENYING VET RIGHTS either didn't read or chose to ignore the rest of the info. SO, KNight-Ridder didn't do anything wrong, in this case.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 481-500 next 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