An example

[Annie]

Partisan? Perhaps. Or perhaps I appear partisan because he's proven himself incapable. I don't complain about my republican mayor and didn't complain about my republican governor for, what was it, three terms? I also had a fondness for our republican senator prior to Schumer. So there ya go. But, no more partisan, I'd say than defending the indefensible.

Intel doesn't come with time(s) and place(s). You're actually supposed to pursue leads... but he didn't have his people do that. He hung out with Condi for a while and then stayed on vacation... more vacation days than any other president, btw. But I'm not complaining about that. I think he should stay on vacation all the time.

I don't complain about a slew of Democrat politicians in this blue state I live in, most do a fine job. Would I 'work' on their campaigns? So far no, none are good enough for me to leave my partisan ways, but would I work for those that oppose them? No, they do a decent job. (Not in the Senate, btw, those I do work for.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Partisan? Perhaps. Or perhaps I appear partisan because he's proven himself incapable. I don't complain about my republican mayor and didn't complain about my republican governor for, what was it, three terms? I also had a fondness for our republican senator prior to Schumer. So there ya go. But, no more partisan, I'd say than defending the indefensible.

Intel doesn't come with time(s) and place(s). You're actually supposed to pursue leads... but he didn't have his people do that. He hung out with Condi for a while and then stayed on vacation... more vacation days than any other president, btw. But I'm not complaining about that. I think he should stay on vacation all the time.

You are aware that Clinton made it nearly impossible for different agencies to share information? That a President does not run the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, or any intelligence or law enforcement agency? Exactly what was Bush supposed to have done with a finding that said some day OBL might want to drive airplanes into buildings?

You have a fit now when ever the Government warns us about ANY terrorist plot. You would have had a field day if Bush had anyone issue any public warning.

In fact the finding was delivered by " gasp" the intelligence agency. Was Bush supposed to personally go to each agency and take over a job he was not trained for or supposed to run?

Your argument is a perfect example of partisan BULLSHIT.

Admit it. No matter what Bush does, you will complain about it. You will continue to blame him for things he is neither responsible for or has done.

 

[jasendorf]

Yet you can not provide any evidence of any cuts? Can you? Everyone wants more, thats human nature. The specific claim is that Bush CUT funding. That is not true. Unless of course YOU can provide some evidence of that.

...

So to end this, Psyco made a bullshit claim. Plain and simple. And now your aiding and abetting that claim.

As the VFW, the DAV, AMVETS and PVA have all agreed, the budget requests by President Bush have been inadequate for providing for the needs of veterans. To quote their Independent Budget documents:

http://es3.pva.org/independentbudget/pdf/CI_FY07.pdf

For FY 2006 the Administration requested $27.8 billion for veterans’ health care for FY
2006, a mere $110 million more than funding for FY 2005. This request represented an
increase of only 0.4 percent despite the fact that in the past the VA has testified that it
requires 13 percent to 14 percent just to meet the demands of inflation and mandatory
salary increases.
Again this year, the president’s recommendation attempted to use budget gimmicks,
major cuts in long-term care programs, and higher out-of-pocket costs for veterans to
cover for its lack of appropriated dollars. The budget request sought to require veterans
in Category 7 and 8 to pay a $250 enrollment fee in order to access the health care system
each year. The request also included a recommendation to increase prescription drug copayments
by more than double, from $7 to $15, for a 30 day supply. The VA originally
estimated that these fees could result in more than 213,000 veterans disenrolling.
Overall, more than a million veterans in Categories 7 and 8 would have been affected by
these proposals.
Faced with growing federal budget deficits, these proposals were part of a concerted
effort to save money and reduce discretionary spending in all federal programs, including
VA health care. Earlier this year, budget control legislation was considered by Congress
that would have placed spending caps on all discretionary programs. These caps would
have meant real cuts in funding. Such cuts would likely force the VA to further restrict
enrollment of new veterans seeking access to the system, and could mean staff cuts which
would result in longer waiting times for veterans.

Maybe you think the VFW, AMVETS, DAV and PVA are all just a bunch of lying Bush-haters... but I think they provide a very clear picture of the funding requests by the Administration. And, those requests are lacking... at best.

You can defend the Bush Administration all you want and cry and whine about Bush-haters... but I think the words of these organizations and their members speak volumes. You win if the question is a sophomoric "is there more money than the previous year or not" bit of tripe; but, if the question is whether the Bush Administration has generously (or, hell, even "adequately") funded the VA, the answer is clearly no as presented by the four major foreign armed service organizations.

Your childish adherence to a simpleton's question of "is there more money than last year or not" in its disingenuousness is a dishonor to military men and women everywhere and, perhaps most importantly, yourself.

 

[doniston]

Being the retard I am, you will have ti link me to where I called you a name.

T'would do no good if you can't remember what you post.

I can see that you and I are going to get along wonderfully. ---- "NOT"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

T'would do no good if you can't remember what you post.

I can see that you and I are going to get along wonderfully. ---- "NOT"

It is not hard really, I post a lot, simply direct me to the post you claim I did this in. I can then either tell you why I did it, apologize if I feel I was wrong, or tell you why you are mistaken.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to respond though, Liberals are well known for making shit up.

 

[Shogun]

Ill be your huckleberry, RGS..

you can offer me an apology for insisting that no liberals take other liberals to task on this board....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ill be your huckleberry, RGS..

you can offer me an apology for insisting that no liberals take other liberals to task on this board....

I will admit that I have seen democrats on this board oppose other democrats. Not sure Liberal applies though. After all Lieberman was a Democrat too and look what happened to him.

I could of course be wrong, we shall see.

 

[Shogun]

Im pretty far from the Lieberman tree, dude.

Im just saying.. I have no problem pouncing on my own side and I think you see that.


But, thanks for that much, I suppose.