Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is little doubt that PTSD is real. There is also little doubt that it is way over diagnosed.
For example; The Former Chaplain (now finance offcer) of my American legion post is a battle of the Bulge veteran. Last year a VA Doctor told him he had PTSD. He came to the next meeting telling us all about it and laughing his head off.
But then on the other hand.
Our newest member has served 2 tours in Afghanistan Came home got hit by a car and has had 4 surgeries and looking at another 6 months of Rehab. No PTSD diagnosed so far.....
I'm going to share an unpopular opinion. I'm SICK OF PTSD. I've served in theater, pulled triggers, watched incoming shit and have had bullets nearly take me out. Unless you've done that or you've picked a soldier's guts up off the ground and helped carry them to a MEDEVAC, you certainly deserve all the respect and benefits the empire can provide. If you're some bed wetter who heard a loud noise in the middle of the night and woke up terrified there were incoming mortars you deserve nothing.
There are too many people getting shit they don't deserve and they're taking resources away from people who've seen and felt REAL trauma. How did all those WW2 vets come back and lead prosperous lives after YEARS of combat and NO LEAVE? Last I looked there were no Burger Kings on the Western Front. Americans please stop being such pussies, or we're going to fall like Rome.
PTSD is as much bullshit as MMGW.
Bullshit.
Just the facts. The military is an overwhelmingly conservative organization.
Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1 | Military Times | militarytimes.com
Military Times' poll shows strong McCain backing
Whose Military Vote? (washingtonpost.com)
Those links do not support your claims.
And...the military is a SOCIALIST organization. You are about as wrong as a person can be.
Its all a racket. And notice the disappearance of opposition in this thread.
Likely because they were a bunch of people that never served and therefore do not have the firsthand experiences that tell us how fucked up the system is.
That could be so, however, it is more likely that they got hooked on the VA trough, they now vote for democrats to keep the trough full, and they will suck on that government teat for the rest of their lives. Indeed, there are thousands of vets who enjoyed the leisure of Deep South Vietnam where they got to walk off base and have a beer with a local lady of the evening, and now, theyre running to the VA for crap they never came in contact with.
I did notice they don't say much.
If it doesn't take long to say what you have to say, what's wrong with that?
Hell...it saves bandwidth for the blowhards!
The problem is that since Progressives/Liberals never write more than one or two lines, we can never understand their side of the argument. They tell us what they are against, but never what they are for. They ridicule the philosophies of Natural Rights and Capitalism, but they do not praise any philosophy of their own.
Although I am free to form my own opinions about which philosophies are guiding modern progressives and liberals, I have yet to see their own opinions about which philosophies guide them, or are Progressive unaware of their right to form their own thoughts?
It is difficult to engage in discourse with you opponent, when you provide your arguments, but they provide none. It creates a lopsided debate where you are constantly under attack, because your opponent conceals their beliefs, thus making them immune to attack. Then they triumphantly declare victory, while not possessing any tangible thing or logical idea of which to boast. Unfortunately, for the masses, this tactic is brilliant, because you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
I'm not condemning you. That's just who you are. But, understand that if you think you're not getting what you want or ask for from the "left," it's not because it hasn't been offered. It's because you're so focused on what YOU believe that you're simply not paying attention.
a. Classical Liberalism vs Progressivism
One of the most polysemous words in American vernacular is the word liberal. The meaning of this word has evolved over the centuries, whilst the meaning itself has had several different variations at any point in time. The history of the word's transformation is fascinating, for the examination of the subject provides the reader with both invaluable and essential knowledge, knowledge that is requisite to understand the very philosophical foundations of our Constitution.
Although the basic concepts of Classical Liberalism have existed since antiquity, it is best to begin this inquiry at the inception of Classical Liberalism during the Age of Enlightenment, founded by the philosopher John Locke. In order to understand John Locke, we must also understand one of those most responsible for influencing his development of Classical Liberal ideology.
Our investigation beings with a man named John Milton and the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.
The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.
Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.
However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects, are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.
The theory presented by John Milton was only rudimentary at best. It was from this idea that great philosophers and other writers would build upon, paving the way towards republican form of government, social contract and natural rights. The first of these philosophers to whom we pay homage if John Locke, the most influential of all the Enlightenment thinkers upon the Constitution of the United States.
In the year 1689, John Locke published Two Treatises on Government, in direct response to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, a book that declared that all government is absolute monarchy, and that no man is born free. In the very beginning of Filmer's book, he states:
'Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude' …
But howsoever this vulgar opinion [above paragraph] hath of late obtained a great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive Church. It contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures, the constant practice of all ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy …
This desperate assertion whereby kings are made subject to the censures and deprivations of their subjects follows — as the authors of it conceive — as a necessary consequence of that former position of the supposed natural equality and freedom of mankind, and liberty to choose what form of government it please …
Secondly, I am not to question or quarrel at the rights or liberties of this or any other nation; my task is chiefly to inquire from whom these first came, not to dispute what or how many these are, but whether they were derived from the laws of natural liberty or from the grace and bounty of princes. My desire and hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample privileges as any nation under heaven; the greatest liberty in the world — if it be duly considered — is for a people to live under a monarch. It is the Magna Charta of this kingdom; all other shows or pretexts of liberty are but several degrees of slavery, and a liberty only to destroy liberty.
Notice the text in bold, Sir Robert would have his readers believe that we have no rights, only privileges which are extended by the grace and goodwill of the King. Herein exists the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, where the King is Sovereign, and the Subjects are no more than serfs. In the words of John Locke, from the the first chapter of his Treatise:
...that in a book [Patriarcha], which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.
The ancient strife between Liberalism and Statism had been ever going, and continues to this very day. Either we are born with certain unalienable rights, bestowed upon us by the Creator, or we are born as Subjects, a distinction chosen for us by the Creator, and we exist at the mercy and grace of Kings. For the meantime, we will examine the former, and abandon the latter — at least for now.
Our study of John Locke shall consist of three pillars:
I. Natural Rights
II. Social Contract
III. Republicanism
We start with the theory of natural rights, established upon the axiom (quoted from the Declaration of Independence), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first investigate the meaning of the word unalienable. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” It is safe to assume that this is the meaning which Thomas Jefferson intended when composing the Declaration of Independence.
There also exists another word of which we must pay heed to, that is the word inalienable. Modern authorities would have us believe that there exists no difference between the words unalienable and inalienable, that the word unalienable was abandoned in favor of inalienable, because the 19th Century placed more emphasis on Latin variants of English than the Anglicized variants; the negative prefix in- is derived from Latin, where the negative prefix un- descends from the original Germanic roots of the English language.
However, there exists an acute difference between unalienable and inalienable, a difference which modern authorities wish you to remain ignorant of. In the year 1952, the Kansas City Court of Appeals made the ruling: Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent.
The implications of the ruling are tremendous, but also necessary. There is nothing intrinsically evil in this ruling. For instance, your life is an unalienable right, it cannot be transferred to another; however, your property is an inalienable right, as it can be transferred to another upon your consent. Unfortunately, the word unalienable has been expunged from American vocabulary, and this was caused neither by coincidence nor the progression of time. This was a calculated effort made by the élite in order to impose Roman Civil Law upon the United States, instead of English Common Law. The former is adjudicated under Admiralty Jurisdiction, the latter falls under the jurisdiction of either Law or Equity. However, this deception by the élite is for another chapter, for now we continue with our study of Natural Rights.
Bullshit.
Just the facts. The military is an overwhelmingly conservative organization.
Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1 | Military Times | militarytimes.com
Military Times' poll shows strong McCain backing
Whose Military Vote? (washingtonpost.com)
Those links do not support your claims.
And...the military is a SOCIALIST organization. You are about as wrong as a person can be.
Well I can speak for retired military, we just got screwed again. for 2 years they claim ther was no rise in the cost of living so we received no COLA increase. I can live with that. But This year my Military retirement went up $37 a month, and then they took it all back plus in the cost of my prescriptions.
From $3 to $5, $9 to $12, and $25 to $43..... Depending on what your script is for depends which of the three you pay. Far cry from the free healthcare we were promised.........
I'm going to share an unpopular opinion. I'm SICK OF PTSD. I've served in theater, pulled triggers, watched incoming shit and have had bullets nearly take me out. Unless you've done that or you've picked a soldier's guts up off the ground and helped carry them to a MEDEVAC, you certainly deserve all the respect and benefits the empire can provide. If you're some bed wetter who heard a loud noise in the middle of the night and woke up terrified there were incoming mortars you deserve nothing.
There are too many people getting shit they don't deserve and they're taking resources away from people who've seen and felt REAL trauma. How did all those WW2 vets come back and lead prosperous lives after YEARS of combat and NO LEAVE? Last I looked there were no Burger Kings on the Western Front. Americans please stop being such pussies, or we're going to fall like Rome.
PTSD is as much bullshit as MMGW.
I'm not condemning you. That's just who you are. But, understand that if you think you're not getting what you want or ask for from the "left," it's not because it hasn't been offered. It's because you're so focused on what YOU believe that you're simply not paying attention.
I believe in the Constitution and the founding histories and philosophies behind it.
When a Republican tries to impose their religious views, I look to the First Amendment.
When a Democrat tries to impose Gun Control, I look to the Second Amendment.
When both parties try to quarter drones over our skies to create a police state, I look to the Third Amendment.
When Republicans pass the Patriot Act, I look to the Fourth Amendment.
When Democrats pass the NDAA, I look to Amendment Five through Eight.
When both parties advocate that the government creates privileges, I look to the Ninth Amendment.
When Congress passes laws outside its enumerated powers, I look to the Tenth Amendment.
-----------------
You're all deluded if you think either party cares about you or our rights in general.
We no longer have a Natural Bill of Rights that can be neither denied nor disparaged, we have an Artificial List of Privileges, that must be earned and can be revoked at any time without reason. Unknown to most Republicans is that they are Progressives themselves, they are simply promoting a parallel Progressive agenda.
Here is a sample of what I'm writing for the Aegis of Liberty Foundation:
a. Classical Liberalism vs Progressivism
One of the most polysemous words in American vernacular is the word liberal. The meaning of this word has evolved over the centuries, whilst the meaning itself has had several different variations at any point in time. The history of the word's transformation is fascinating, for the examination of the subject provides the reader with both invaluable and essential knowledge, knowledge that is requisite to understand the very philosophical foundations of our Constitution.
Although the basic concepts of Classical Liberalism have existed since antiquity, it is best to begin this inquiry at the inception of Classical Liberalism during the Age of Enlightenment, founded by the philosopher John Locke. In order to understand John Locke, we must also understand one of those most responsible for influencing his development of Classical Liberal ideology.
Our investigation beings with a man named John Milton and the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.
The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.
Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.
However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects, are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.
The theory presented by John Milton was only rudimentary at best. It was from this idea that great philosophers and other writers would build upon, paving the way towards republican form of government, social contract and natural rights. The first of these philosophers to whom we pay homage if John Locke, the most influential of all the Enlightenment thinkers upon the Constitution of the United States.
In the year 1689, John Locke published Two Treatises on Government, in direct response to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, a book that declared that all government is absolute monarchy, and that no man is born free. In the very beginning of Filmer's book, he states:
'Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude'
But howsoever this vulgar opinion [above paragraph] hath of late obtained a great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive Church. It contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures, the constant practice of all ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy
This desperate assertion whereby kings are made subject to the censures and deprivations of their subjects follows as the authors of it conceive as a necessary consequence of that former position of the supposed natural equality and freedom of mankind, and liberty to choose what form of government it please
Secondly, I am not to question or quarrel at the rights or liberties of this or any other nation; my task is chiefly to inquire from whom these first came, not to dispute what or how many these are, but whether they were derived from the laws of natural liberty or from the grace and bounty of princes. My desire and hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample privileges as any nation under heaven; the greatest liberty in the world if it be duly considered is for a people to live under a monarch. It is the Magna Charta of this kingdom; all other shows or pretexts of liberty are but several degrees of slavery, and a liberty only to destroy liberty.
Notice the text in bold, Sir Robert would have his readers believe that we have no rights, only privileges which are extended by the grace and goodwill of the King. Herein exists the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, where the King is Sovereign, and the Subjects are no more than serfs. In the words of John Locke, from the the first chapter of his Treatise:
...that in a book [Patriarcha], which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.
The ancient strife between Liberalism and Statism had been ever going, and continues to this very day. Either we are born with certain unalienable rights, bestowed upon us by the Creator, or we are born as Subjects, a distinction chosen for us by the Creator, and we exist at the mercy and grace of Kings. For the meantime, we will examine the former, and abandon the latter at least for now.
Our study of John Locke shall consist of three pillars:
I. Natural Rights
II. Social Contract
III. Republicanism
We start with the theory of natural rights, established upon the axiom (quoted from the Declaration of Independence), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first investigate the meaning of the word unalienable. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. It is safe to assume that this is the meaning which Thomas Jefferson intended when composing the Declaration of Independence.
There also exists another word of which we must pay heed to, that is the word inalienable. Modern authorities would have us believe that there exists no difference between the words unalienable and inalienable, that the word unalienable was abandoned in favor of inalienable, because the 19th Century placed more emphasis on Latin variants of English than the Anglicized variants; the negative prefix in- is derived from Latin, where the negative prefix un- descends from the original Germanic roots of the English language.
However, there exists an acute difference between unalienable and inalienable, a difference which modern authorities wish you to remain ignorant of. In the year 1952, the Kansas City Court of Appeals made the ruling: Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent.
The implications of the ruling are tremendous, but also necessary. There is nothing intrinsically evil in this ruling. For instance, your life is an unalienable right, it cannot be transferred to another; however, your property is an inalienable right, as it can be transferred to another upon your consent. Unfortunately, the word unalienable has been expunged from American vocabulary, and this was caused neither by coincidence nor the progression of time. This was a calculated effort made by the élite in order to impose Roman Civil Law upon the United States, instead of English Common Law. The former is adjudicated under Admiralty Jurisdiction, the latter falls under the jurisdiction of either Law or Equity. However, this deception by the élite is for another chapter, for now we continue with our study of Natural Rights.
Modern Progressive (both Democrats and Republicans) philosophy is identical to the Divine Right of Kings, except we replace the word King with Government.
Likely because they were a bunch of people that never served and therefore do not have the firsthand experiences that tell us how fucked up the system is.
That could be so, however, it is more likely that they got hooked on the VA trough, they now vote for democrats to keep the trough full, and they will suck on that government teat for the rest of their lives. Indeed, there are thousands of vets who enjoyed the leisure of Deep South Vietnam where they got to walk off base and have a beer with a local lady of the evening, and now, theyre running to the VA for crap they never came in contact with.
I would not go that far. Neither party disparages the VA and both are willing to overfill the trough. A few years ago, it was the dems that were increasing military pay and benefits OVER what the repubs asked for. Both parties like using the military as a political stomping point even if they dont give a rats ass after they go home.
With the distribution of republicans to democrats in the military AND the fact that I believe (dont have the numbers to support me but I have my own observations) true combat veterans are MUCH more likely to be active in the VA than non-combat veterans that they VA is likely even more tilted to the right.
It is one of my complaints about the current government, EVERYONE want to cut but NO ONE want to cut their piece of the government cheese. Republicans are just as bad as democrats here clining to their programs that they use just as much as the dems do theirs. Most vets that are pulling benefits dont want to see them cut even when they are way too excessive.
Ill use my neighbor as an example again. He is a republican through and through, hates Obama and all his policies to the core. He is now on disability of which he does deserve but he is getting 100 percent AND works full time for the VA pulling another check along with other benefits as well. None of them should be cut according to him. He does not want his cheese cut even though for this budgetary fiasco to resolve, everything is going to get hit.
See? You're still not listening. You're preaching.
Confucious say, "One cannot hear while one's mouth is open."
Well I can speak for retired military, we just got screwed again. for 2 years they claim ther was no rise in the cost of living so we received no COLA increase. I can live with that. But This year my Military retirement went up $37 a month, and then they took it all back plus in the cost of my prescriptions.
From $3 to $5, $9 to $12, and $25 to $43..... Depending on what your script is for depends which of the three you pay. Far cry from the free healthcare we were promised.........
It's gonna get worse. There's NO WAY the empire can take in 18 Y/O kids, run the shit out of them and retire them at 38 while they'll live maybe 50 more years.
You took a promise from government and expected it to be fulfilled?
I guess you can only do it once.
Well I can speak for retired military, we just got screwed again. for 2 years they claim ther was no rise in the cost of living so we received no COLA increase. I can live with that. But This year my Military retirement went up $37 a month, and then they took it all back plus in the cost of my prescriptions.
From $3 to $5, $9 to $12, and $25 to $43..... Depending on what your script is for depends which of the three you pay. Far cry from the free healthcare we were promised.........
It's gonna get worse. There's NO WAY the empire can take in 18 Y/O kids, run the shit out of them and retire them at 38 while they'll live maybe 50 more years.
You took a promise from government and expected it to be fulfilled?
I guess you can only do it once.
I've been watching that promise chip away for nearly 20 years, and both parties have taken a little......
There is little doubt that PTSD is real. There is also little doubt that it is way over diagnosed.
For example; The Former Chaplain (now finance offcer) of my American legion post is a battle of the Bulge veteran. Last year a VA Doctor told him he had PTSD. He came to the next meeting telling us all about it and laughing his head off.
But then on the other hand.
Our newest member has served 2 tours in Afghanistan Came home got hit by a car and has had 4 surgeries and looking at another 6 months of Rehab. No PTSD diagnosed so far.....
I'm going to share an unpopular opinion. I'm SICK OF PTSD. I've served in theater, pulled triggers, watched incoming shit and have had bullets nearly take me out. Unless you've done that or you've picked a soldier's guts up off the ground and helped carry them to a MEDEVAC, you certainly deserve all the respect and benefits the empire can provide. If you're some bed wetter who heard a loud noise in the middle of the night and woke up terrified there were incoming mortars you deserve nothing.
There are too many people getting shit they don't deserve and they're taking resources away from people who've seen and felt REAL trauma. How did all those WW2 vets come back and lead prosperous lives after YEARS of combat and NO LEAVE? Last I looked there were no Burger Kings on the Western Front. Americans please stop being such pussies, or we're going to fall like Rome.
PTSD is as much bullshit as MMGW.
I've seen your posts. You definitely suffer from some kind of psychological disorder.
Well I can speak for retired military, we just got screwed again. for 2 years they claim ther was no rise in the cost of living so we received no COLA increase. I can live with that. But This year my Military retirement went up $37 a month, and then they took it all back plus in the cost of my prescriptions.
From $3 to $5, $9 to $12, and $25 to $43..... Depending on what your script is for depends which of the three you pay. Far cry from the free healthcare we were promised.........
It's gonna get worse. There's NO WAY the empire can take in 18 Y/O kids, run the shit out of them and retire them at 38 while they'll live maybe 50 more years.
You took a promise from government and expected it to be fulfilled?
I guess you can only do it once.
I've been watching that promise chip away for nearly 20 years, and both parties have taken a little......
