Veterans & War

[Flanders]

The Veterans Administration is a national disgrace. Men and women who serve this country in the military deserve a lot better than they are getting. The idea of private healthcare insurance for veterans is a good one although the details need a lot of clarification before rushing into another government program. Subsidizing private healthcare insurance for veterans as a way to shutdown every VA hospital needs no clarification.

NOTE: Trying to maintain VA hospitals in addition to subsidizing private healthcare insurance would be a bigger disaster than the ACA.

The danger in going to subsidized private healthcare insurance for veterans can be seen in the GI Bill. Paying for education after veterans serve the country is now part of the pay package, and it’s a good idea. Subsidizing higher education for everybody has become an education industry boondoggle that staggers common sense. My point: The parasite class is already talking about riding into socialized medicine on the backs of veterans’ healthcare. Their justification: Whatever veterans get the rest of us should get, too.

Obviously, wars make wounded veterans

There would be a lot fewer wars if they were only fought for self-defense. Most wars are fought for the beliefs of the very few. WWI was such a war for Americans. America was not threatened in any way, yet President Wilson took the country to war to satisfy his personal beliefs.

WWII was a war of self-defense. America was attacked. Whether or not FDR could have used diplomacy to dissuade Japan from declaring war is another discussion.

Conclusion: Never fight in a war for somebody else’s beliefs. The same can be said of revolutions. Never fight for the beliefs of the few à la Communist revolutions. Fighting against the beliefs of religious fanatics of every stripe is self-defense.

In the same vain, American military people are already forced to serve the United Nations. Should another major United Nations Police Action like the ‘Korean War’ come the draft will have to be reinstated; ergo, everybody in the military will be forced to fight for the beliefs of the UN-loving global government crowd. The rest of the country will be forced to pay for it.

Fighting FOR limited government is one of two acceptable reason for an aggressive war or revolution. Question: How many times did people fight a revolution, or go to war, for limited government. Answer: None. Not once. Never. Even the American Revolution was fought for independence. Limited government only came after THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE was won. Throughout all of the decades since 1783 not one serious movement for limited government has been mentioned anywhere in the world let alone fought for, while the democracy movement (totalitarian government) throughout the 20th century has been growing in deed and in public discourse.

Fighting a war of aggression for profit is the second acceptable reason for going to war. Sad to say a war for profit is the easier one to sell.

Finally, a religious war of aggression declared by Muslin fundamentalists is a first in that it is a one-sided war. America is not at war while Islam is.

 

[regent]

The Veterans Administration is a national disgrace. Men and women who serve this country in the military deserve a lot better than they are getting. The idea of private healthcare insurance for veterans is a good one although the details need a lot of clarification before rushing into another government program. Subsidizing private healthcare insurance for veterans as a way to shutdown every VA hospital needs no clarification.

NOTE: Trying to maintain VA hospitals in addition to subsidizing private healthcare insurance would be a bigger disaster than the ACA.

The danger in going to subsidized private healthcare insurance for veterans can be seen in the GI Bill. Paying for education after veterans serve the country is now part of the pay package, and it’s a good idea. Subsidizing higher education for everybody has become an education industry boondoggle that staggers common sense. My point: The parasite class is already talking about riding into socialized medicine on the backs of veterans’ healthcare. Their justification: Whatever veterans get the rest of us should get, too.

Obviously, wars make wounded veterans

There would be a lot fewer wars if they were only fought for self-defense. Most wars are fought for the beliefs of the very few. WWI was such a war for Americans. America was not threatened in any way, yet President Wilson took the country to war to satisfy his personal beliefs.

WWII was a war of self-defense. America was attacked. Whether or not FDR could have used diplomacy to dissuade Japan from declaring war is another discussion.

Conclusion: Never fight in a war for somebody else’s beliefs. The same can be said of revolutions. Never fight for the beliefs of the few à la Communist revolutions. Fighting against the beliefs of religious fanatics of every stripe is self-defense.

In the same vain, American military people are already forced to serve the United Nations. Should another major United Nations Police Action like the ‘Korean War’ come the draft will have to be reinstated; ergo, everybody in the military will be forced to fight for the beliefs of the UN-loving global government crowd. The rest of the country will be forced to pay for it.

Fighting FOR limited government is one of two acceptable reason for an aggressive war or revolution. Question: How many times did people fight a revolution, or go to war, for limited government. Answer: None. Not once. Never. Even the American Revolution was fought for independence. Limited government only came after THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE was won. Throughout all of the decades since 1783 not one serious movement for limited government has been mentioned anywhere in the world let alone fought for, while the democracy movement (totalitarian government) throughout the 20th century has been growing in deed and in public discourse.

Fighting a war of aggression for profit is the second acceptable reason for going to war. Sad to say a war for profit is the easier one to sell.

Finally, a religious war of aggression declared by Muslin fundamentalists is a first in that it is a one-sided war. America is not at war while Islam is.

Even before the Revolutionary war ended it was seen by the founders that American needed a stronger government with less limits and more power. Then over the years as Americans gained more confidence that they were indeed in charge of government they began to make changes using government to meet more of the people's needs.
One only has to look at our history to realize that more changes will be made as the years pass, using government to aid us in our pursuit of happiness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The idea of a short time fix with the use of private care facilities makes sense in this case.

However, the history of the VA is not replete with 30,000 needless deaths from infections every year that plagues private care hospitals.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed without a xfr of VA care permanently to private sector companies.

Remember: good government is about great service; good business is about great profit.

 

[Flanders]

Even before the Revolutionary war ended it was seen by the founders that American needed a stronger government with less limits and more power. Then over the years as Americans gained more confidence that they were indeed in charge of government they began to make changes using government to meet more of the people's needs.
One only has to look at our history to realize that more changes will be made as the years pass, using government to aid us in our pursuit of happiness.

To regent: In the real world a minority of parasites, not the people, are in charge of our government. More importantly:

1. Parasites brought down every empire, every great nation, that ever was.

2. Every generation produces an army of fools who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.

The idea of a short time fix with the use of private care facilities makes sense in this case.

However, the history of the VA is not replete with 30,000 needless deaths from infections every year that plagues private care hospitals.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed without a xfr of VA care permanently to private sector companies.

Remember: good government is about great service; good business is about great profit.

To JakeStarkey: Socialized medicine makes everything worse. See this thread for details about deaths caused by hospitals:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...thcare/317159-villains-facts-and-reasons.html

 

[regent]

Even before the Revolutionary war ended it was seen by the founders that American needed a stronger government with less limits and more power. Then over the years as Americans gained more confidence that they were indeed in charge of government they began to make changes using government to meet more of the people's needs.
One only has to look at our history to realize that more changes will be made as the years pass, using government to aid us in our pursuit of happiness.

To regent: In the real world a minority of parasites, not the people, are in charge of our government. More importantly:

1. Parasites brought down every empire, every great nation, that ever was.

2. Every generation produces an army of fools who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.

The idea of a short time fix with the use of private care facilities makes sense in this case.

However, the history of the VA is not replete with 30,000 needless deaths from infections every year that plagues private care hospitals.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed without a xfr of VA care permanently to private sector companies.

Remember: good government is about great service; good business is about great profit.

To JakeStarkey: Socialized medicine makes everything worse. See this thread for details about deaths caused by hospitals:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...thcare/317159-villains-facts-and-reasons.html

Maybe that's why the American people have been so slow accepting our government as a tool to be used not only for carrying on wars and aiding business but for taking on more social programs for the benefit of the American people. Can anyone deny that since 1783 the American people have asked, ever so slowly, for more social programs and a more enlightened perception of their needs? The changes are undeniable, and they will continue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders merely linked his own flawed version of the facts.

Flanders is also a birfer.

That is all a right thinking person needs to know.

 

[Flanders]

Maybe that's why the American people have been so slow accepting our government as a tool to be used not only for carrying on wars and aiding business

To regent: Your “slow” is doublespeak for Socialist incrementalism.

but for taking on more social programs for the benefit of the American people.

To regent: The parasite class benefitted; the American people were forced to pay for it.

Can anyone deny that since 1783 the American people have asked, ever so slowly, for more social programs and a more enlightened perception of their needs?

To regent: I can. Every one of your social programs was implemented by stealth after it was presented as something else. Prime Example: The War on Poverty gave the country a self-perpetuating parasite class.

The changes are undeniable, and they will continue.

To regent: When did the welfare state turn into the Saturday afternoon serials of my youth? Continued Next Week.

I do admit to curiosity! What comes after the tax on income, funding Planned Parenthood, more than a million babies butchered in the womb every year, the pride the infanticide crowd takes in Kermit Gosnell’s cruelty, death panels, open borders, America’s lost sovereignty, lost property Rights, law by executive order and bureaucratic regulations, the EPA and the IRS punishing law-abiding Americans without charging them with a crime let alone giving them a trial, a minimum of 10 percent permanently unemployed, indoctrinating children into the joys of collectivism, Common Core, equal distribution of poverty, the dollar’s shrinking buying power, the massive transfer of wealth going from the wealth producers to public trough parasites, an economic system designed by and for absentee owners, crimes and criminals too big to be punished, defeat in war, and, of course, the frightening prospect of HillaryCare III coming after HillaryCare II.

 

[regent]

Maybe that's why the American people have been so slow accepting our government as a tool to be used not only for carrying on wars and aiding business

To regent: Your “slow” is doublespeak for Socialist incrementalism.

but for taking on more social programs for the benefit of the American people.

To regent: The parasite class benefitted; the American people were forced to pay for it.

Can anyone deny that since 1783 the American people have asked, ever so slowly, for more social programs and a more enlightened perception of their needs?

To regent: I can. Every one of your social programs was implemented by stealth after it was presented as something else. Prime Example: The War on Poverty gave the country a self-perpetuating parasite class.

The changes are undeniable, and they will continue.

To regent: When did the welfare state turn into the Saturday afternoon serials of my youth? Continued Next Week.

I do admit to curiosity! What comes after the tax on income, funding Planned Parenthood, more than a million babies butchered in the womb every year, the pride the infanticide crowd takes in Kermit Gosnell’s cruelty, death panels, open borders, America’s lost sovereignty, lost property Rights, law by executive order and bureaucratic regulations, the EPA and the IRS punishing law-abiding Americans without charging them with a crime let alone giving them a trial, a minimum of 10 percent permanently unemployed, indoctrinating children into the joys of collectivism, Common Core, equal distribution of poverty, the dollar’s shrinking buying power, the massive transfer of wealth going from the wealth producers to public trough parasites, an economic system designed by and for absentee owners, crimes and criminals too big to be punished, defeat in war, and, of course, the frightening prospect of HillaryCare III coming after HillaryCare II.

Yes, the changes continue, each change seen in a different light, and benefiting different people.

 

[Flanders]

Yes, the changes continue, each change seen in a different light, and benefiting different people.

To regent: Individual liberties benefit everybody as America’s Constitution demonstrated before Democrats got their hands on it. Which people do you have in mind?

 

[regent]

Yes, the changes continue, each change seen in a different light, and benefiting different people.

To regent: Individual liberties benefit everybody as America’s Constitution demonstrated before Democrats got their hands on it. Which people do you have in mind?

Liberty is an undefined term, liberty for whom to do what? Give liberty to citizens to carry a loaded gun into a school and some mothers lose their liberty to be secure.
The liberals, later to become today's Democratic party, had their hands on the Constitution and would only back ratification if a Bill of Rights were added.

 

[Flanders]

Liberty is an undefined term,

To regent: Not really:

liberty (noun)
plural liberties

1.a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

3. A right and power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

4. Often liberties . a. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. b. A statement, an attitude, or an action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology. c. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.

5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.

idiom.
at liberty

1. Not in confinement or under constraint; free.

2. Not employed, occupied, or in use.

liberty for whom to do what?

To regent: Not only for whom but from whom. Take your pick from the dictionary definitions.

Give liberty to citizens to carry a loaded gun into a school

To regent: Why not if they are law-abiding security guards, teachers, parents, etc? It’s a law enforcement issue if they are criminals or nut jobs.

and some mothers lose their liberty to be secure.

To regent: Why only mothers?

And I’m not sure if you mean surrender their liberty, or have it taken away by Democrats. Either way this is how you return security to every woman:

The liberals, later to become today's Democratic party, had their hands on the Constitution and would only back ratification if a Bill of Rights were added.

To regent: Please! Not Saul Alinsky again.

Do you not see that it makes no sense to defend Democrats who are trying to abolish the Bill of Rights you claim their political ancestors insisted on.

Also, you pulled that Saul Alinsky crap in a previous thread; so I’ll repeat my final comment on the subject:

 

[regent]

Liberty is an undefined term,

To regent: Not really:

liberty (noun)
plural liberties

1.a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

3. A right and power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

4. Often liberties . a. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. b. A statement, an attitude, or an action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology. c. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.

5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.

idiom.
at liberty

1. Not in confinement or under constraint; free.

2. Not employed, occupied, or in use.

To regent: Not only for whom but from whom. Take your pick from the dictionary definitions.



To regent: Why not if they are law-abiding security guards, teachers, parents, etc? It’s a law enforcement issue if they are criminals or nut jobs.

and some mothers lose their liberty to be secure.

To regent: Why only mothers?

And I’m not sure if you mean surrender their liberty, or have it taken away by Democrats. Either way this is how you return security to every woman:

The liberals, later to become today's Democratic party, had their hands on the Constitution and would only back ratification if a Bill of Rights were added.

To regent: Please! Not Saul Alinsky again.

Do you not see that it makes no sense to defend Democrats who are trying to abolish the Bill of Rights you claim their political ancestors insisted on.

Also, you pulled that Saul Alinsky crap in a previous thread; so I’ll repeat my final comment on the subject:

Where did Saul Alinsky come from, was he a delegate to the Constitution Convention, or were you trying to make another point? In any case I don't see any sense not defending the premise that liberals insisted a Bill of Rights be promised before they voted to ratify the Constitution.

 

[Flanders]

Where did Saul Alinsky come from, was he a delegate to the Constitution Convention,

To regent: Your ludicrous claim originated with Saul Alinsky (1909 - 1972). He couldn’t change the Constitution; so he taught the parasite class to change meanings. People like you prove that Alinsky giving Communists credit for the Bill of Rights was a viable strategy.

Parenthetically, taking credit for everything good is an old Communist trick. American Communists knew they could not sell equal distribution of the wealth; so they came up with circulation of wealth schemes. That justified confiscating the nation’s wealth and giving it to the ruling class, then taking credit for creating the wealth they confiscated. In so doing they repeatedly tell the biggest joke of all —— Class Warfare:

And who can forget this one:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng&feature=player_embedded]Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube[/ame]​

Community organizer Barack Taqiyya learned ‘change the meaning’ so well he went Saul Alinsky one better when he claimed that the Rights in the Bill of Rights were Negative Rights. Socialists/Communists cannot stand the fact that constitutional Rights are free; so Taqiyya the Liar redefined the Rights in the original Bill of Rights by calling them Positive Rights that have to be paid for tax dollars.

or were you trying to make another point?

To regent: Set the record straight since the public schools no longer teach the limited government the Founding Fathers intended. Indeed, Nutty Nancy gets away with idiotic claims, like the one Judge Napolitano demolishes in the video, because at least two generations of Americans were not taught the truth:

Rep. Pelosi claiming Founding Fathers? support for ObamaCare? | On Air Videos | Fox Business

In any case I don't see any sense not defending the premise that liberals insisted a Bill of Rights be promised before they voted to ratify the Constitution.

To regent: There you go again. Those delegates who insisted on a Bill of Rights wanted more protections from the kind of government the Democrat party is implementing with the income tax.

Incidentally, I decided to respond to your nonsense for others who might be following this thread. There’s no hope for your kind.

 

[regent]

Yes, the changes continue, each change seen in a different light, and benefiting different people.

To regent: Individual liberties benefit everybody as America’s Constitution demonstrated before Democrats got their hands on it. Which people do you have in mind?

Well a number of Americans were not convinced the Constitution delivered the individual liberties that you speak of or they didn't want the individual liberties. The vote for ratification of the Constitution in Massachusetts was 197 for 168 against, in Virginia 89 for 79 against, New York 30 for 27 against and so on. If conservatives had not promised the liberals a Bill of Rights the Constitution might not have passed at all.

 

[whitehall]

The key issue that you need to base criticism for the VA is the fact that the Obama administration authorized bonuses (at taxpayer expense) for VA administrators who saved money. The easiest way to save money was by making up a secret death list and allow Veterans to die without "unnecessary" medical treatment that would only prolong their lives for another year or two. Every VA administrator who accepted a federal bonus and authorized a death list should be indicted for negligent homicide.

 

[Picaro]

Maybe that's why the American people have been so slow accepting our government as a tool to be used not only for carrying on wars and aiding business but for taking on more social programs for the benefit of the American people. Can anyone deny that since 1783 the American people have asked, ever so slowly, for more social programs and a more enlightened perception of their needs? The changes are undeniable, and they will continue.

Socialism for the rich worked so well it's no wonder many people want to try it for themselves, so yes, the long history of socializing the costs of business while privatizing the profits has indeed brought about a change in perceptions. Good point.

 

[Flanders]

Socialism for the rich worked so well it's no wonder many people want to try it for themselves, so yes, the long history of socializing the costs of business while privatizing the profits has indeed brought about a change in perceptions. Good point.

To Picaro: In layman’s terms: Tax dollar capitalism for the ruling class. Communism for everyone else.

 

[regent]

Socialism for the rich worked so well it's no wonder many people want to try it for themselves, so yes, the long history of socializing the costs of business while privatizing the profits has indeed brought about a change in perceptions. Good point.

To Picaro: In layman’s terms: Tax dollar capitalism for the ruling class. Communism for everyone else.

When Social Security was being debated during the early 1930's; some charged Social Security would lead to communism; is that still one of the conservative claims or has that been dropped from the Republican playbook?

 

[Flanders]

Where did Saul Alinsky come from, was he a delegate to the Constitution Convention,

Here’s a bit more about Saul Alinsky that should interest anyone who wants to know where Hillary Clinton is coming from:

"America -- Imagine a World Without Her," published by Regnery and set for release Monday, charges that as students of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama and Clinton could have enough time to “unmake and then remake America” into a nation the founding fathers wouldn't recognize.

XXXXX​

He focuses on Obama’s and Clinton’s links to Alinsky in a chapter titled “The Plan.” He claims the two followed the radical’s master plan that they hide their views and ideas until they get into power.

XXXXX​

“Hillary and Obama have both learned the Alinsky lesson that your should aggressively pursue power while pretending to be motivated by altruism,” he added.

“More importantly, Hillary and Obama both adopted Alinsky’s strategic counsel to sound mainstream, even when you aren’t,” wrote D’Souza. “These are the ways in which our two Alinskyites make themselves palatable to the American middle class, which to this day has no idea how hostile Hillary and Obama are to middle-class values.

“If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, the baton will have passed from one Alinskyite to another. In this case, Alinsky’s influence will have taken on a massive, almost unimaginable, importance. Obama will have had eight years to remake America, and Hillary will have another four or perhaps eight to complete the job,” he wrote.

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' warns Hillary Clinton will 'finish off' the country
By Paul Bedard | May 30, 2014 | 1:51 pm

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' warns Hillary Clinton will 'finish off' the country | WashingtonExaminer.com​

 

[regent]

Where did Saul Alinsky come from, was he a delegate to the Constitution Convention,

Here’s a bit more about Saul Alinsky that should interest anyone who wants to know where Hillary Clinton is coming from:

"America -- Imagine a World Without Her," published by Regnery and set for release Monday, charges that as students of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama and Clinton could have enough time to “unmake and then remake America” into a nation the founding fathers wouldn't recognize.

XXXXX​

He focuses on Obama’s and Clinton’s links to Alinsky in a chapter titled “The Plan.” He claims the two followed the radical’s master plan that they hide their views and ideas until they get into power.

XXXXX​

“Hillary and Obama have both learned the Alinsky lesson that your should aggressively pursue power while pretending to be motivated by altruism,” he added.

“More importantly, Hillary and Obama both adopted Alinsky’s strategic counsel to sound mainstream, even when you aren’t,” wrote D’Souza. “These are the ways in which our two Alinskyites make themselves palatable to the American middle class, which to this day has no idea how hostile Hillary and Obama are to middle-class values.

“If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, the baton will have passed from one Alinskyite to another. In this case, Alinsky’s influence will have taken on a massive, almost unimaginable, importance. Obama will have had eight years to remake America, and Hillary will have another four or perhaps eight to complete the job,” he wrote.

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' warns Hillary Clinton will 'finish off' the country
By Paul Bedard | May 30, 2014 | 1:51 pm

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' warns Hillary Clinton will 'finish off' the country | WashingtonExaminer.com​

How many times have we been warned about a candidate that is going to finish off America as president? We have had presidents accused of being fascists, communists, socialists, and Democrats, ironically we elected one candidate that was not going to finish off America and he has been rated as America's worst president. No, not Bush, Bush was rated fifth worst.
Come to think of it maybe candidates that are going to finish off America make the best presidents?