Democrats screw the Vets to protect....

froggie said:
Until we get rid of the lobbyist, this is the way it will be on both sides of the fence! We need to change the system.
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more. As others and myself have stated before, as long as money is equated to free speech, we are screwed.
 
Superfreak said:
THIS example was how Feinstein blocked the VA (that stands for Veterans Administration.... same ones that run Walter Reed) from using the land near her wealthy hollywood constituents to raise money that can be put to use to help the Vets. So in saying this example is "insignificant" is equivalent to saying fuck the vets.
Click to expand...


Maybe in your world. Saying it's "insignificant" does not mean it should go unexcused. I'm just saying that, overall, to the welfare of all veterans & to other issues going on, this is not a huge, earth-shattering kind of event. But yeah, it's bad.

You're just stupid & desperate, as usual....
 
Onceler said:
I'm not ignoring it. You said no one was paying attention to your thread, I jumped on & said it was bad behavior, and you're STILL saying I'm ignoring it, because it's what you need to believe.

You're a joke...
Click to expand...

yeah, you said it was bad behavior and then in the very next post said it was insignificant. Despite the outcry from Dems on the status of Walter Reed, despite their vow to end this very same type of bullshit that they drilled (rightfully so) the Republicans on. But I get it... it is "insignificant" to you, because it doesn't let you bash bush. Which is why you tried to spin the topic over to Iraq. Good boy... ya get your Dem gold star for the day.
 
Onceler said:
Maybe in your world. Saying it's "insignificant" does not mean it should go unexcused. I'm just saying that, overall, to the welfare of all veterans & to other issues going on, this is not a huge, earth-shattering kind of event. But yeah, it's bad.

You're just stupid & desperate, as usual....
Click to expand...

I am betting the VA would disagree with you. $4 billion would go a long way to improving the healthcare the vets are getting. Would it solve all their problems? No. But $4 billion would sure help.

Do not worry, your hypocricy is shining through for all to see.
 
Bush is the only hope you pathetic dims have going for you. You are not smart enough to realize it.
 
Superfreak said:
yeah, you said it was bad behavior and then in the very next post said it was insignificant. Despite the outcry from Dems on the status of Walter Reed, despite their vow to end this very same type of bullshit that they drilled (rightfully so) the Republicans on. But I get it... it is "insignificant" to you, because it doesn't let you bash bush. Which is why you tried to spin the topic over to Iraq. Good boy... ya get your Dem gold star for the day.
Click to expand...


What a loser. I said it shouldn't be excused, but that's it's insignificant, and, in the scheme of things, it is. You're trying to compare it to larger, more pressing issues is ludicrous.

Again, it should not be excused. What more would you like? Would you like me to say that it is an extremely significant event in my life, on a par with the Iraq War?
 
Onceler said:
What a loser. I said it shouldn't be excused, but that's it's insignificant, and, in the scheme of things, it is. You're trying to compare it to larger, more pressing issues is ludicrous.

Again, it should not be excused. What more would you like? Would you like me to say that it is an extremely significant event in my life, on a par with the Iraq War?
Click to expand...

You say it should not be excused, but that is exactly what you do. A drive by... "this is bad" and then immediately back into your bush bashing. Quite pathetic.

I never said it should be extremely significant to you or that it was on par with Iraq. So please, go back to threads that bash bush and leave this discussion to those that are upset with the continued corruption under dems that they pledged to change. Leave it to those of us that are upset with the care our Vets are getting at Walter Reed and other VA hospitals around the country. Go bash bush... the rest of us can discuss why this is indeed SIGNIFICANT to our Vets.

$4 billion worth of significance to them.
 
I can only conclude from your expounding on this thread that you don't really want liberals or Democrats to comment on a topic. You would prefer that they ignore it, so they can "prove" your preconceived conclusion that liberals are all just hypocrites, and all they want to do is "bash" poor widdle ol' GW Bush.
 
"You say it should not be excused, but that is exactly what you do. A drive by... "this is bad" and then immediately back into your bush bashing. Quite pathetic."

My answer didn't please you. Did you require vitriol? More exclamation points? A demand for an overthrow of Congress? Less of a sense of perspective, and more of an emotional knee-jerk reaction?

Please instruct me on the proper condemnation so I can get it right next time around...
 
Onceler said:
I can only conclude from your expounding on this thread that you don't really want liberals or Democrats to comment on a topic. You would prefer that they ignore it, so they can "prove" your preconceived conclusion that liberals are all just hypocrites, and all they want to do is "bash" poor widdle ol' GW Bush.
Click to expand...

To the contrary... I would love to hear your opinions on how your Dem leaders are doing exactly what they said they would not do. I would love to hear why this is not a more important issue when a Dem is protecting the wealthy at the expense of our vets. If this were a Republican, taking money from Vets to protect the wealthy... would your reaction be the same?
 
Superfreak said:
Those poor deprived individuals living in Beverly Hills.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/feinsteins_4_bn_beverly_hills.html

So much for the Dems claims of cleaning up earmarks. Here is yet ANOTHER example of the Dems reneging on their vow to clean up the corruption. This time the Dems are targeting the VA. Yes, after all of their outcrys about Walter Reed, only one Dem (Russ Feingold) and 24 Reps voted against D Feinstein's earmark to protect her wealthy hollywood consituents.

I can understand the Dems not having the courage to stand up to one of their leaders, but what the hell are the other Reps doing? They should have been unanimous against her and thrown the whole corruption thing back in the face of the Dems. Not to mention the issue of the current state of the VA.

$4 BILLION that could have gone to the vets. But instead will protect a bunch of spoiled hollywood elitists from having their views ruined. Kind of reminiscent of Ted Kennedy's fight against the wind farm.
Click to expand...

The VA has yet to make any decisions, but according to government estimates, even a modest reuse of the property--say leasing out excess acreage--could result in an extraordinary $4 billion for better care for veterans everywhere.

Umm, I'm not prepared to take that on its face. Evidence?
 
Yeah, ok, I read the whole thing. I'd like to see the other side of this. Are there no patients in this facility? Why wouldn't there be more patients coming what with the increase in returning wounded?

This sounds very one sided to me. I can't work up any outrage over it, sorry. Especially since I've yet to see the Wall Street Journal advocate for increased VA spending, the filthy, hypocritcal little piggies.
 
Superfreak said:
To the contrary... I would love to hear your opinions on how your Dem leaders are doing exactly what they said they would not do. I would love to hear why this is not a more important issue when a Dem is protecting the wealthy at the expense of our vets. If this were a Republican, taking money from Vets to protect the wealthy... would your reaction be the same?
Click to expand...


Don't try to get me with this kind of BS. You paint broad brushstrokes about me using reactions you have seen from other lefties. You have implied on this thread that I made a big deal about Walter Reed, and about Bush's Austrian comment, when I have done no such thing. It's just guilt by association with you. It's pathetic.

Like I said about the Dems: they passed the first meaningful reform legislation in quite some time. I'm a cynical person, and I don't trust politicians, but let's give a little credit where it's due. That is not to say that I think some Democrats are not corrupt & will continue to abuse the system, or that the legislation will end up being very effective. As I said, the jury is still out (something which Damo seems to have taken issue with). Apparently, rushing to judgment is the only acceptable attitude to take, lest I want to be viewed as a koolaid drinking hypocrite.

So be it. I'll let the jury deliberate for a little while longer....
 
Darla said:
The VA has yet to make any decisions, but according to government estimates, even a modest reuse of the property--say leasing out excess acreage--could result in an extraordinary $4 billion for better care for veterans everywhere.

Umm, I'm not prepared to take that on its face. Evidence?
Click to expand...

Are ya kidding? TWO HUNDRED acres in West LA? A few miles from the beach... yeah, what possible value could they get from developing that into a business park or something like that.
 
Onceler said:
Don't try to get me with this kind of BS. You paint broad brushstrokes about me using reactions you have seen from other lefties. You have implied on this thread that I made a big deal about Walter Reed, and about Bush's Austrian comment, when I have done no such thing. It's just guilt by association with you. It's pathetic.

Like I said about the Dems: they passed the first meaningful reform legislation in quite some time. I'm a cynical person, and I don't trust politicians, but let's give a little credit where it's due. That is not to say that I think some Democrats are not corrupt & will continue to abuse the system, or that the legislation will end up being very effective. As I said, the jury is still out (something which Damo seems to have taken issue with). Apparently, rushing to judgment is the only acceptable attitude to take, lest I want to be viewed as a koolaid drinking hypocrite.

So be it. I'll let the jury deliberate for a little while longer....
Click to expand...


What meaningful reform? A reform that is so grand that it allows a politician to still ream the public (in this case Vets specificially) to the tune of $4 BILLION?
 
I was at lunch but let me respond to a few things:

1) The Democrats never ever ever campaigned on a promise to eliminate earmarks. They simply didn't do it. Ever. They campaigned on a promise to open up the process to public scrutiny. Clearly, that has occurred. Otherwise, we wouldn't know about this "earmark."

2) There have been accusations of "corruption" being thrown around. How is it corrupt for a California congressmember to represent her constituents' interest? I'm not sure how you get there, but maybe someone can explain it to me.

3) This isn't really an "earmark." The term "earmark" refers to marking appropriated funds for a specific use. This has nothing to do with appropriating funds, hence there are no funds "earmarked" for a specific use.

4) The whole basis of the op-ed is that the funds that could ptentially be generated by this piece of property would flow directly to the VA. That probably isn't true. At all. Any revenue generated would likely go to the GSA who is in control of public property and would probably have ended up in the general fund. Saying that Feinstein is denying the VA $4 billion is laughable on it face.

5) The finalized version of the bill provides more funds than the Bush Administration requested for Veterans' Affairs. For them to complain that Feinstein's move denies the VA $4 billion in funds when the bill the Senate passed provides about $4 billion more than the Bush Administration requested is, again, laughable on it's face.

Thanks for playing though.
 
Superfreak said:
What meaningful reform? A reform that is so grand that it allows a politician to still ream the public (in this case Vets specificially) to the tune of $4 BILLION?
Click to expand...

You're being hyperbolic & emotional.

You realize Bush hasn't signed the bill yet, right?

In light of that, can you at least admit how incredibly stupid your statement above is?
 
Dungheap said:
I was at lunch but let me respond to a few things:

"1) The Democrats never ever ever campaigned on a promise to eliminate earmarks. They simply didn't do it. Ever. They campaigned on a promise to open up the process to public scrutiny. Clearly, that has occurred. Otherwise, we wouldn't know about this "earmark."

They campaigned to end corruption. Please expalin how this is anything but corrupt. Telling the VA they cannot use the 200 acres to help finance more assistance for Vets? Because of what? Who does that restriction benefit?

"2) There have been accusations of "corruption" being thrown around. How is it corrupt for a California congressmember to represent her constituents' interest? I'm not sure how you get there, but maybe someone can explain it to me."

So it is okay to represent and protect wealthy consituents at the expense of the Veterans? To put in an earmark that restricts the VA from raising money to provide more assistance to vets because her wealthy constituents want a better view.

"3) This isn't really an "earmark." The term "earmark" refers to marking appropriated funds for a specific use. This has nothing to do with appropriating funds, hence there are no funds "earmarked" for a specific use."

yes it does. In a very underhanded way. By denying the VA the ability to run its own facilities to provide as much benefit to the Vets as possible, she is denying them funding. That land has value and she just "earmarked" it for use by her wealthy constituents. But I see now that it is okay to protect the wealthy as long as you are a dem.

"4) The whole basis of the op-ed is that the funds that could ptentially be generated by this piece of property would flow directly to the VA. That probably isn't true. At all. Any revenue generated would likely go to the GSA who is in control of public property and would probably have ended up in the general fund. Saying that Feinstein is denying the VA $4 billion is laughable on it face. "

Wow, are ya dizzy from trying to spin that?

5) The finalized version of the bill provides more funds than the Bush Administration requested for Veterans' Affairs. For them to complain that Feinstein's move denies the VA $4 billion in funds when the bill the Senate passed provides about $4 billion more than the Bush Administration requested is, again, laughable on it's face.

Thanks for playing though.
Click to expand...

So becaue the spending bill increases spending for the VA it is okay to take that increase away from them? That makes little sense. Here... we will increase you spending, but in name only, because we are denying you the ability to use $4 billion while giving you $4 billion extra. Would the VA not be better off with the $8 billion?
 
Onceler said:
You're being hyperbolic & emotional.

You realize Bush hasn't signed the bill yet, right?

In light of that, can you at least admit how incredibly stupid your statement above is?
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize the bill has not been signed. I also realize that you will all make up one excuse after another to try to make this appear as not a big deal.

I also realize that if this had been a Rep, you would all be going ape shit right now over how a Rep was protecting the rich at the expense of the Vets. Can YOU admit to that?

Such hypocrits.

Also, tell me what was so incredibly stupid with regards to the question on the reform? That reform did little to curb the pork spending, little to end the corruption. Please explain what you see in that legislation that you would actually be naive enough to call "signifcant"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top