# Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans



## edthecynic (Jul 10, 2011)

Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog

Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riNOnsbI6bQ"]YouTube - &#x202a;Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 10, 2011)

Come on now!  What is in it for the wealthy?  Be real!  How is helping female veterans going to help the wealthy?  Geessshhhh...you got to ask the important questions first!

*HOW WAS THAT CALI?*


----------



## rdean (Jul 10, 2011)

The middle class exists only as "cannon fodder" for the rich.  I thought that was understood.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jul 10, 2011)

They only care about vets when it gains them politically


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 10, 2011)

Had you not heard it is Obamas wars now.  Why should the right support vets?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 10, 2011)

Welcome to the freak show. Get used to it, you will see a dozen "republicans want to kill or starve or deprive" (pick a victim) every month until the election in 2012. It's an old cheap hate-filled political trick courtesy of the ignorant left.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2011)

JimH52 said:


> Come on now!  What is in it for the wealthy?  Be real!  How is helping female veterans going to help the wealthy?  Geessshhhh...you got to ask the important questions first!
> 
> *HOW WAS THAT CALI?*



Women are not real veterans anyway


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 10, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Welcome to the freak show. Get used to it, you will see a dozen "republicans want to kill or starve or deprive" (pick a victim) every month until the election in 2012. It's an old cheap hate-filled political trick courtesy of the ignorant left.



...and its true.


----------



## cielo42 (Jul 11, 2011)

this is sad..


----------



## Cimerian (Jul 11, 2011)

So why do female veterans need a bill just for them?  Males too of course but only if they have kids.  Why would a female veteran be treated differently than a male veteran?


----------



## cielo42 (Jul 11, 2011)

Petition Congress to raise taxes and close loops holes in Debt Ceiling debate
Please sign the petition below and email your local representatives/senators!
http://www.change.org/petitions/dema...e-debt-ceiling

The American middle and lower class refuse to bare the entire burden of balancing the United States' massive debt. The people of the United States have grown fearful with the threat of a credit default looming because of a stagnant debate in our Congress about raising the debt ceiling. In recent negotiations, President Obama has put forth a deal that would cut parts of social security and medicare while raising tax revenues. We the people disagree with the notion that our welfare programs must be sacrificed in order to balance the federal government's budget. Republicans have refused to consider raising taxes and therefore I ask that everyone call or email their senators and state representatives demanding that they leave our welfare programs alone and return taxes for the upper class back to pre-Bush-era rates while also closing loop holes for big oil and agriculture.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

Cimerian said:


> So why do female veterans need a bill just for them?  Males too of course but only if they have kids.  Why would a female veteran be treated differently than a male veteran?



Read the bill, OK?  Women are three times more likely than men veterans to become homeless.

This is shameful, shameful, shameful.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 15, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill&#x202c;&rlm;



The bill increases spending in an already existing program.  Sorry but where is this money going to come from?  Oh thats right, borrow it.   Borrow more to spend more.

And not many people end up homeless unless they are drug addicts or have some other serious problem.  I'd like to know why there are supposedly so many homeless vets.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 15, 2011)

I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?

Shouldn't we take care of our vets first and foremost?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 15, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> ...


Funny how during the Reagan Star Wars years we were told that borrowing money for the military was always good borrowing. But now special funding for military people with special needs is bad because we have to borrow the money. 

And it couldn't be that when reservists were called away from their jobs, that the loss of income prevented them from keeping up their housing payments making them homeless, it must be that the military are a bunch of drug addicts.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 15, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So you have proof that the majority of these homeless were reservists that lost their income, knowing of course that they would lose that income if and when they are called up.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 15, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It all depends on who is doing the borrowing.  You should know that.  If the GOP borrows, well, like DICK said..."Deficits don't matter."

SUDDENLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE....AND THEY DO MATTER!

Come on DICK.  Step up and defend deficits again...


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 15, 2011)

theHawk said:


> I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?
> 
> Shouldn't we take care of our vets first and foremost?


Typical CON$ervative pitting one needy group against another.

Why not have those who benefit most, from Americans risking their LIVES to protect the wealthy's right to private ownership, contribute a little extra?

Oh that's Right, The wealthy risking money to "create jobs" overseas is a greater risk and sacrifice than an American risking their lives to defend this great country.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 15, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


So you have proof that they were drug addicts?


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 15, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?
> ...



The House GOP freshmen have made a pledge to screw everyone and everything that makes less than $250,000 a year...so they can be reelected.  And the FOX crowd will blindly go along with them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2011)

Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Actually yes, if you bothered to look at your own links you'd see that the posterchild for this was featured in Huffo.  She was a soldier who couldn't hack it, of course she claims that she was raped but didn't go to the cops and has zero proof.  She was booted out for being a lunatic, and yes, she even confesses that she got addicted to drugs.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Had you not heard it is Obamas wars now.  Why should the right support vets?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?
> ...



You are inferring that "the rich" don't contribute more than everyone else.  The further up the income bracket you go, the higher the taxes are.  Unless you can prove otherwise, you are full of shit.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 16, 2011)

Why does the right hate our troops?


----------



## Sallow (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Percentage wise?

Most of the wealthy are wealthy because they got some fat government contract somewhere along the line.

As in..they take in much more taxes..then they give back. They also use more tax payer funded infrastructure then they pay for..

So in terms of society?

They are big fat leeches.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 16, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.



How about providing proof that they voted "against help for homeless vets"?

This bill was about increasing spending in an already existing program.  The program has not been cut, nor was there ever a vote to cut the current program to my knowledge.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 16, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?
> 
> Shouldn't we take care of our vets first and foremost?



these programs have already been reduced, the heat assistance for the poor has been cut by 50%. 
What else do you not know?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 16, 2011)

Sallow said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I see, so using tax dollars to give to people who don't work at all is A-OK in your book.
But if the government pays people to do work that the government needs done for itself, well that's what you call "leeching".

Gotta love liberal logic.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 16, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Why does the right hate our troops?



What proof do you have that "the right" hates our troops?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.
> ...



Proof?  Your point is hot air without it.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill&#x202c;&rlm;



homelessness for everyone is increasing, there's a recession, whoops, poor economy on, have you heard? 

some Q's- there is no prgm. in being that deals with veteran outreach? why do we need an act? why don't they find the correct prgm in being and vote to increase its funding IF its warranted? do we know its warranted?

just another 3.5 Billion,  on top of say the 4.5 Billion for Michelles pet project ..pretty soon we are talking real money. 

and this all feeds the pathology and why dealing with democrats ends the way its ends up now. heres how it works- create a grp. cry , call everyone a greedy grinch if they don't approve, have a vote spend= more money......thats why they will never cut anything, they don't think there is anything ever that CAN be cut or not funded. Cowboy poetry anyone?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 16, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



??

Maybe you should read the links provided in the OP.  The vote was against a bill to increase spending for this particular program.  There was never a vote to cut funding.

Carry on, dipshit.


----------



## St.Blues (Jul 16, 2011)

*Welfare;*

_For those that need it or for those who need the Votes?_

I would bet most homeless people don't vote.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

from the link;



> Women returning from war have unique risk factors for homelessness, such as trauma from sexual assault while in the military and lower earning potential than men. According to the Vietnam Veterans of America:




uh huh....shameless.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 16, 2011)

This is exactly what needs to be stopped.
We already have many programs in the VA that helps homeless veterans. It includes women already.
Sen. Patty Murry should have done her homework before she added a duplicate program.


This is why government is costing us too much money, programs on top of programs.
It was the right thing that they did. If government had done this to begin with we would not have the mess that we are in right now.
You libs need to wake up and do some of your own homework about these duplicate (more and more money) kind of bills.
She is pulling at the heartstrings of you libs and coning you into accepting more and more government.
She how it is written - we have to have more for them because they have children and are on the streets - key trigger word (trauma). When there are many programs already for them.
check out the VA Homeless benefits there are plenty of programs to help them.
Homeless Veterans Home


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

peach174 said:


> This is exactly what needs to be stopped.
> We already have many programs in the VA that helps homeless veterans. It includes women already.
> Sen. Patty Murry should have done her homework before she added a duplicate program.
> 
> ...



thank you...

and 3 billion is a LOT of money, we are throwing terms like Trillions around that just makes a billion seems like a pittance.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 16, 2011)

Trajan said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > This is exactly what needs to be stopped.
> ...



 A pittance here a pittance there has added up to 1.5 Trillion that we don't have.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Read the title 
It says the GOP *BLOCK* benefits to homeless vets, it doesn't say "cut."


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> ...



Funny that their boy Obama was going to withhold everyone Social Security check and they didn't say a peep


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



and what does 'block' mean to you in this context?


----------



## California Girl (Jul 16, 2011)

It seriously pisses me off when both fucking sides shamelessly use our veterans for their cheap, pathetic political point scoring. 

You people (and by 'you people' I mean both sides) should be ashamed of yourselves. You're fucking morally bankrupt.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> snipped ....




What exactly are you 'cynical' about, you morally bankrupt sick freak? You're no more a 'cynic' than I am a left wing whackjob. You're a fucking mindless partisan hack.... and a sick freak who uses children for political point scoring.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 16, 2011)

Let them eat cake!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2011)

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


It certainly does not mean "cut" in ANY context!!!
BLOCK means BLOCK!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> ...


Another Right-Wing  who hates our brave military!


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



thats right a block is not a cut, so, it appears they are blocking the increase to an ongoing budgeted prgm. ?


----------



## Paulie (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> ...



Did you ever consider what years of war does to a person's mind?  

I'm all about taking personal responsibility, but I've never been in a war zone so I can't condescend to tell someone who has that they should suck it up and just get back to regular civilian life like all the rest of us.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 16, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Welcome to the freak show. Get used to it, you will see a dozen "republicans want to kill or starve or deprive" (pick a victim) every month until the election in 2012. It's an old cheap hate-filled political trick courtesy of the ignorant left.



Ahh but the trick is to decry reality as a political trick.
Lose not sight of who the tricksters are my friends.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the freak show. Get used to it, you will see a dozen "republicans want to kill or starve or deprive" (pick a victim) every month until the election in 2012. It's an old cheap hate-filled political trick courtesy of the ignorant left.
> ...



soooo, the reality is what, we just rioll along and everytime one sect screams hey this grp or that needs money, we just find it?


----------



## peach174 (Jul 16, 2011)

Paulie said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Suck it up?
News for you. The VA has already got a very good menatal health program.
https://iris.custhelp.com/app/answe...2LzEvdGltZS8xMzEwMTczNDgyL3NpZC9vZnliR3Z5aw==


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 16, 2011)

Trajan said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Your reading comprehension is offtrack today.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the freak show. Get used to it, you will see a dozen "republicans want to kill or starve or deprive" (pick a victim) every month until the election in 2012. It's an old cheap hate-filled political trick courtesy of the ignorant left.
> ...



What part of duplicate programs are you not getting?
It's a Democrat Sen. Murry who wants more for an already existing, very good benefit program.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you should read the links provided in the OP.  The vote was against a bill to increase spending for this particular program.*  There was never a vote to cut funding.*
> ...





Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


So now you are suddenly agreeing with me in my argument against the Hawk who said it was reported as a "CUT" when clearly the OP reports it as a BLOCK.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 16, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



the VA cannot cope with the volume of vets needing mental health care in most areas of the country.
I know I worked with them for over 2 years acting as an outside monitor/support person for disturbed vets.
Yes some areas have decent coverage but most do not.
You all forget the Allbright/Doyle task force on veterans health care?
Almost nothing of what they promised has been enacted.

And I am an ex combat vet.


----------



## Paulie (Jul 16, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



New for YOU.

After spending years seeing people's bodies blown apart, some maybe even close friends of yours, a "mental health program " is certainly no guarantee of mental health.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



ok, can you explain what you said then please?


----------



## peach174 (Jul 16, 2011)

Paulie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...




No it isn't. The person needs to want to help their own self before getting mental help.
I f they keep the poor poor me mentality no one can help them.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 16, 2011)

Trajan said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I said what I said. nothing more nothing less.
I will not open up what I said to worded tricks.


----------



## Paulie (Jul 16, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



We're not just talking about some 30 something person who's just "sad about stuff".  We're talking about people who've seen shit most of us have only seen recreated artificially in movies.  

It's not hard to imagine how badly that can fuck a person's mind up.  I'm not trying to make excuses for not seeking help, I'm just trying to put it into perspective.  Imagine how hard it must be to come back here after all that and try to get normal again.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...





> Ahh but the trick is to decry reality as a political trick.
> Lose not sight of who the tricksters are my friends.



I am not trying to play word "tricks", I am asking you to simply explain what you meant by that comment?


----------



## rdean (Jul 16, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Welcome to the freak show. Get used to it, you will see a dozen "republicans want to kill or starve or deprive" (pick a victim) every month until the election in 2012. It's an old cheap hate-filled political trick courtesy of the ignorant left.



You mean they don't?

Then why do they want to cut:

Medicare
Education
school lunches
Social Security
building infrastructure
funding for the Special Olympics
Planned Parenthood
Food stamps


----------



## rdean (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s]&#x202a;Warren Buffett&#39;s Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary&#39;s&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

Apology accepted.

Payroll plus income tax 17%.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 16, 2011)

Paulie said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Thank you, Paulie.  Anyone who has not been in war has no moral legitimacy to discuss "responsibility" in this situation.  These veterans fought for you folks, but some of you apparently won't fight for them when they need it.

Shame on every last one of you ungrateful freaks who won't take care of our veterans.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 16, 2011)

thank you for the usual mawkish dribble.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 16, 2011)

Trajan, you are the dribble on America's pant leg.  If you don't support veterans, then you are morally worthless.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Well, there you go again. First you changed "block" to "cut" and now you are changing "risk" to "taxes." CON$ habitually say that the rich deserve tax cuts because they "risk" money creating jobs overseas. Well, our brave vets risked their lives protecting the rich's right to private ownership, which is a far greater risk than mere money, so I'm saying that if risking money entitles the rich to a financial break, risking your life entitles our brave vets to an even greater financial break.
Get It?


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 16, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



You have not a clue of the truama many of those vets keep reliving.

The old republican pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk huh?

As I said before it is now Obama's wars so the right is no longer obligated to support the vets.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 17, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It's not blocking benefits if they didn't vote to cut or end the program.  

It would be far more accurate to say they blocked an increase in spending.

Not that you'd want to be accurate.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 17, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There you go twisting my words again.  I never changed "risk" to "taxes".  I never referred to the word "risk",  as you did with your little hypothetical debate you had with yourself.

You said "Why not have those who benefit most" "contribute a little extra?"  That is what I was responding to.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 17, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Your pathetic attempt to use lies about the right supporting truth is contemptible. Are you so partisan that you lie to make your 'point' or are you genuinely just some half assed moron?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



So if Republicans propose a bill to spend $10 Trillion dollars on Veterans tomorrow, you'd want to vote for it?

If not, then you're an "ungrateful freak who won't take care of our veterans".

See how easy this is?


----------



## California Girl (Jul 17, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Sick freak who lies for point scoring. The 'hater' here is you.... you have no respect for anyone, certainly not the military. 

Credibility - put it on your shopping list. You're out.


----------



## oldsalt (Jul 17, 2011)

California Girl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Cite one instance of the right supporting truth.....STFU.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 17, 2011)

oldsalt said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Oh, grow a brain, oldshit. You need to add 'credibility' to your shopping list - you just spent your last shred. 

I despise the use of our veterans for political point scoring.... and that is what USC does. He's a hack, and so are you.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 17, 2011)

There already exists a homeless vet program.  This is just a duplicate.

Block it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 17, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> ...


I notice no mention of the grounds for opposition.  Could it be that there are already well funded programs in place to do exactly this?
Yes, this is the meme for 2012: Heartless Republicans want to cut funding for______.
The truth is the Democrats hate poor amd disadvantaged people more than anyone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

False premise, Hawk, and if that is all you have now, you fail.  If you will not take care of those who took care of you, then see how easy it is to show that you are an ungrateful freak?  For shame.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 17, 2011)

Block it.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill&#x202c;&rlm;



Why don't these alleged homeless women vets go back to where they lived before they joined the service?  There are people who will do anything and say anything to partake of the slop at the taxpayer trough, even lie about their living conditions to obtain their imagined "slice of the pie."  Those women who volunteered to serve their country are no more entitled to rob the public coffers than anyone else is, and these alleged "residentially challenged" females are no more honorable than the general public, which has a bad record of cheating and swindling the taxpayers for all they can.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> ...



You are a stupid fuck, what good will "going back to where they lived before they joined the service" do moron?


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> The middle class exists only as "cannon fodder" for the rich.  I thought that was understood.



That's a pretty rash statement, old bean, how do you arrive at such a demagogic conclusion?  Could you expand a little on that sophomoric statement?  Inquisitive minds want to know.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 18, 2011)

Interesting how Lasher turned into something totally different rather than a duplicate program.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It isn't nice to call people such names simply because you disagree with them.  Why are you so angry?  Are you incapable of grasping the truth that these females had a home before they joined up, then it must follow that those homes would still be available.  Do you have some reason why they wouldn't, in fact, still be there?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher is a terrible demogogue.  He uses the undersell soft soap approach, but he is virulent.  The female veterans stood up for him, but he is unwilling to stand up for them.  Plus the antisemitism in his signature reeks.

We know all we need to know about Lasher; he is here only for grins and chuckles.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



What you are saying makes no sense, just because they had a home before they enlisted it does not mean that place will still be available.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher is a terrible demogogue.  He uses the undersell soft soap approach, but he is virulent.  The female veterans stood up for him, but he is unwilling to stand up for them.  Plus the antisemitism in his signature reeks.
> 
> We know all we need to know about Lasher; he is here only for grins and chuckles.



The female veterans knew when they joined up that they might be going to places that were dangerous, just like anyone who applies for a dangerous job like lumberjacking, roughnecking, etc.  They accepted the jobs and were paid for doing them, which is what they agreed to when enlisting, so why should we taxpayers be responsible for their housing after they have quit their jobs?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Being a veteran means our citizenry agree to take care of them if they come home damaged.

They have an excuse.  Your lack of gratitude is inexcusable.  I hope the VFW and DAV folks know who you are in the neighborhood, and treat you accordingly.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



No, it is what you are saying that makes no sense.  Why in the world should their homes they left before enlisting not still be available?  Does it make sense to you that while they were away from their homes for a short period of time, those homes would disappear in the interim?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher is clearly mentally ill.  He can't reason at all.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



Short period of time? these enlistments are between 4 to 6 years jack ass, and some of them probably have stayed longer, how are they going to keep a place open in their home of record for that long when they are not even living there retard?


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Are they all orphans with no families?  They are mighty young to be without anyone to take them in, such as parents, spouses, friends with privileges, etc.  Why do you assume they will have nowhere to turn?  Oh, calling me jackass, retard and cuckoo doesn't reinforce your ideas at all, old sport.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher is clearly mentally ill.  He can't reason at all.



Lasher feels that it is you who can't reason at all, but he won't degrade Himself by using epithets against you.  People who get so angry they have to call others names just show they know they are wrong.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 18, 2011)

Since when did Liberals ever give a shit about veterans?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



Not everyone has a family willing to take them in retard.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Welcome to the freak show. Get used to it, you will see a dozen "republicans want to kill or starve or deprive" (pick a victim) every month until the election in 2012. It's an old cheap hate-filled political trick courtesy of the ignorant left.



As usual you're wrong.  The neo-Republican Party wants to cut the deficit this year, if and only if taxes are not raised and welfare is not eliminated from the 'job creators'.  They believe in these truths: 

The Homeless, vets or not, do not create jobs, do not create wealth and hurt commerce when they die in front of store entrances.  Wealth is good, great wealth is gooder and poverty should not be seen or heard from.

Those who do not create wealth are not entitled to anything, they must exercise personal responsibility in their life, if they do they will be fine.

Those who create jobs are entitled to benefits including tax cuts, the end of the  burden of a government overseer, and free and unregulated markets because they so greatly contribute to society.  Even if they dirty a little water or air in the process, the end - job creation - justifies a tiny bit of pollution.  A little mercury or other heavy metal in the diet won't hurt anyone.

Only radical Democrats and libtards believe otherwise, and of course these leftists are all Marxists commies who hope to redistribute the wealth of the nation, the wealth 'earned' by the Kock Brothers and Mitt Romneys who by their blood, sweat and tears (taxes always make them cry) have 'created' jobs, or so they would have us believe.

How did Romney earn his wealth, btw?  Anyone ever seek to understand how he created failing business into profitable business?  Hint, what is the greatest cost to business?  Might want to take a look at the Romney record of labor relations.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 18, 2011)

Romney? 

Hell man - look at that elitist John Kerry. How does he get his millions? He's got millions of Chinese packing Heintz ketchup in off-shore factories, working for 4 cents an hour. 

But that's OK, huh?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Since when did Liberals ever give a shit about veterans?



Some liberals are vets; and some liberal vets think those vets who wear their service on their sleaves are assholes.  Millions of us served, most quietly and with honor, and I suspect I'm not alone in finding your effort to speak for all of us despicable.

I'm suspect you loved Ronald Reagan, the guy who first required vets to prove their disability was service connected.  I worked with a number of vets who couldn't prove PTST was real and the only peace they could get came out of a bottle or needle.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Since when did Liberals ever give a shit about veterans?



Old Warrior, Lash isn't a liberal, and He does, indeed, care for veterans, He just doesn't see why they should be given extra perks for doing the duty they agreed to do for the pay they received. 

 No other jobs that Lash knows of has to house their employees after they are terminated.  Do you know of any?  Lash's family has many veterans among it, and none of them have ever demanded they be housed by the government after their service.

This country is going bankrupt, and the more we feed the flames of insolvency, the higher they will burn, untill our collective house will be only ashes on the ground, and we'll all be homeless.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Romney?
> 
> Hell man - look at that elitist John Kerry. How does he get his millions? He's got millions of Chinese packing Heintz ketchup in off-shore factories, working for 4 cents an hour.
> 
> But that's OK, huh?



It's okay with the law or he wouldn't be able to do it.  If you were in his smelly shoes you might do the same thing.  The fact that his wife and he are both of the Hebrew faith could have some bearing on his desire to amass a lot of profits.  Lash suggests you boycott all Heinz products as He has done.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Since when did Liberals ever give a shit about veterans?
> ...



I surely don't speak for all veterans, my friend, so don't get your panties up in a big knot. And I don't frankly give a shit what you find despicable or not. 

Regarding Ron Reagan - best Commander In Chief in my 20+ years in the service. He came in after that Carter and squared away Carter's fuck-ups and made the military his #1 priority, restored HONOR to serve, and made us proud again. Under Carter, pride didn't exist - dope smokers everywhere, crime, low morale, piss-poor pay, budget cuts, servicemen on welfare, etc. 

I lived it son, not some Liberal fantasy world you're in. 

So sit down and shut up. You come across as dense.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Then they must not be of very good character, and those are the type I can't feel much pain for.  It isn't the taxpayers' duty to house low-life people (or any others) who are too dysfunctional to provide for themselves.  Few of these malfunctioning vets you champion actually were in combat, but were just in support roles.  At any rate, Lash doen't feel it is His duty to house them.  Have you taken any of them in?


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



So ... were you drafted?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



I lived it too, and you didn't comment on Reagan's policy on PTST and service connected disabilty requirements.  So fuck off and read a bit of history - Carter inherited Stagflation from Nixon and the war he promised to end and didn't in the six years before he resigned in disgrace.

Oh, and take your "son" and shove it up your ass, I suspect I'm older and surely wiser then you.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Again, with this post - you come across as being over-the-top dense, son. Ignorant as well. For example, you're blaming Carter's piss poor performance on Nixon. That's pure idiocy. Do you take that idiocy one step further and blame Obama's piss poor performace on Bush? What is it about you Liberals and people of your ilk? Why not accept responsibly/man-up for once. 

In the meantime, get back to your Harry Potter book junior.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Since when did Liberals ever give a shit about veterans?



Warrior102, that comment is stupid and unworthy.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Since when did Liberals ever give a shit about veterans?
> ...



No, actually peacenicks spitting on soldiers coming home from Vietnam are stupid and unworthy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher, calling you what you are, in fact, is certainly not mean name calling.  It is defining you appropriately.

The vets stood up for you, but you won't stand up for the vets.

Not only is that lack of gratitude, your belief is unworthy of any person who loves this country.

Shame on you.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Well then, why don't you show me just where I am wrong?  Unlike you, I am willing to listen to others' ideas, no matter how misguided they might be.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



You are wrong because you are assuming that just because these folks had a place to live at the time of their initial enlistment, that they will still have a place to go later down the line when they are done with service. Any adult whos been out in the real world will know that is not always necessarily the case, unless they are a Peter Pan type who never left home and sit around playing Medal of Honor all day.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher, calling you what you are, in fact, is certainly not mean name calling.  It is defining you appropriately.
> 
> The vets stood up for you, but you won't stand up for the vets.
> 
> ...



Would standing up for the vets who willingly signed up for dangerous duty also include furnishing each one with a new automobile, a fishing boat, a small aircraft for their weekend pleasure?  Shall we guarantee every vertebrate who was in the service a grand existence with no cares or worries at all?  Those people did a job, that's all, and they volunteered.  It is the duty of everyone who is American to do all he or she can do to protect his country, and not do it for the rewards he or she might receive after that duty is done.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



If they were able to have a place to live previous to their enlistment, why shouldn't they be able to have one after their job is over?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



Everyones situation is different, that like saying you left your parents house to work for an oil company overseas in Kuwait for 10 years. When you return there is no guarantee your parents will have a place for you, circumstances change all the time.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



Why didn't you spit back, old warrior?


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Then such parents are the ones who should be castigated by you and your brothers-in-arms, not us taxpayers who sometimes can't afford our own living quarters.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher, calling you what you are, in fact, is certainly not mean name calling.  It is defining you appropriately.
> ...



They did job that you would not.  For protecting their country they get benefits you do not.  That is the way it is.  Thank heavens you do not make the rules but only whine about them.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



Obama's performance isn't piss poor and the accomplishments of the congress under Pelosi's leadership make the current Boehner leadership a diminutive of do nothing.  If you knew anything of history you would put in perspective the Economy inherited by Carter, along with the Iranian Revolution and subsequent takeover of our Embassy and the OPEC embargo.

There is no Liberal Party in the United States; since you choose to bring up ignorance explain your use of the word Liberal (big 'L') - using it as a superlative is too common example of the hyperbolic ignorance of your "ilk".


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It takes a small mind, such as yours, to use ridicule words like "whine" to try and prove some point, old sport.

Just where do those benefits stop?  You didn't answer my question about the autos, boats and planes.  Why should anyone be provided for, ad infinitum, simply for defending his country?  Do you imagine the soldiers who froze at Valley Forge expected to be provided with free medical, clothing, housing, food, etc. after they returned back to their families?
No, they were rugged individuals who provided for themselves and were glad to do it.  They were the stock of which America is sadly lacking today.  Today's people are so used to having everything given to them by the Government, they whine (I can use it too) when they aren't provided for by Big Brother Government.  Soak the rich!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

You are whining, Lasher.  Your arguments do not make sense, Lasher.  You cry when your silly arguments are repudiated, Lasher.  What is your issue, Lasher?

Were you rejected when you tried to join?


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are whining, Lasher.  Your arguments do not make sense, Lasher.  You cry when your silly arguments are repudiated, Lasher.  What is your issue, Lasher?
> 
> Were you rejected when you tried to join?



You are the one who appears to be doing most of the whining, old sport, Lasher is only telling it as it is, while you can't refrain from your constant bleating about how patriotic you are and trying to make Lash think you are more knowledgeable than He.  Lash laughs in your face because of your transparent futility in your posts.  Get a grip, old man.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher continues to pine and whine.

He can't stop bleating about how awful it is to take care of vets.

Lasher knows nothing.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



The bottom line is these men and women signed up to do something you did not, to defend this country and put their lives in possible danger. For taking that risk, there are rewards. If you are so jealous your current job at Dairy Queen doesn't provide these kind of benefits, quit and head to your nearest Military recruiters office.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher continues to pine and whine.
> 
> He can't stop bleating about how awful it is to take care of vets.
> 
> Lasher knows nothing.



Punishing word "bleating," where could you have found it?  Got plagiarism?


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Oh my, now I've done it.  You have been stirred up and Lash has hurt you so much you are now talking about a job at Dairy Queen.  Sorry I stuck it in so deep, old bean.  How do you know anything about Lasher's military service?  Are you a fortune teller?  Prescient?  ESP?  You are becoming incoherent, my pal.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



If anyone is incoherent it is you clown.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Do you really think adding the word "clown" helped your case?  You are ridiculous, old friend.  LOL!!


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



The word clown is fitting for you because it is 100% accurate.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



No, no, it's just your feeble little way of trying to assert your meek little personality over my dashing, daring, bold one.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



Theres nothing dashing, daring or bold about you little lady. You are dismissed.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Now you have employed the old coward's trick of screaming a derogatory name and running away; why did I expect that?  Are you late for the NAMBLA meeting?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher continues to pine and whine.
> ...



A common word cannot be plagiarized, old queen.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



Lash, old dean, the fact is that you are jealous of others' courage, which tell us much about your lack of it.  You have no military service, old queen, for no honorable veteran talks as you.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



If giving sailors blowjobs down by the dock counts as Military "Service", than yes our Lady Lasher has quite a bit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



You are upset that others do as you, dear queen?  You are not bold, daring, or dashing.  You are a simple little zit of poster here who has been popped.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Lasher loves it when his silly little opponents get so angry they can only call Him names and wet their pants.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lashar silly boy decries others for doing like Lashar.  Silly Lashar.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



You're sinking lower and lower into the slime pit of stupidity, old sock.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Lasher said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



As long as we understand where Lady Lasher splashes, OK.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan, you are the dribble on America's pant leg.  If you don't support veterans, then you are morally worthless.




uh huh...


voting 3.5 billion for a prgm that already exists minus a thorough vetting of what we get for that money, is ill advised. 

for instance the VA already has a request in for 5.9 billion more, so why another addition of 3.5? that's pretty hefty. they are almost doubling their request?  

for instance why have they not achieved success by their own metrics? yet,  that want more money?








so they are 54-46.....sounds to me like they need to account for the 12 most certainly and why they have not achieved more success on that 34%, before we give them more cash.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

Trajan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan, you are the dribble on America's pant leg.  If you don't support veterans, then you are morally worthless.
> ...



Thank for finally making a worthy statement, and I withdraw the "stain" comment.  You did not deserve it.  Yes, the vetting should be done.  Cash benefit analysis (84%) for taking care of veterans is not the criteria, though.  Homeless homeless veterans need to be taken in now.  We can assign better assessments later.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



It's always interesting to hear that story, but it's always third hand...


----------



## bodecea (Jul 18, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Since when did Liberals ever give a shit about veterans?



This Liberal IS a veteran, bub.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lashar silly boy decries others for doing like Lashar.  Silly Lashar.



That sounds gay to Lash.  Is that all the wit you have - the ability to call people homosexual?  It says more about you than it does Lash.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 19, 2011)

Trajan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan, you are the dribble on America's pant leg.  If you don't support veterans, then you are morally worthless.
> ...



The type of people you are answering imagine themselves to be super-patriots who exhibit their patriotism the only way they can, and that is to promote the throwing of  taxpayer monies to the winds of any program they believe will make them appear to be all gung-ho for the troops they really think no more of than they do of their own selves, which is very little.  These semi-vertebrates spend the majority of their lives bleating about conditions they have no control over whatsoever, but they think it shows they are big boys whose only goal in life is to right the wrongs of others.  They usually seldom go out into the real world, and probably have no jobs of their own, which gives them unlimited time to blow hard in these forums.  They are a pathetic, pitiful bunch.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The fellow from Texas that wrote the book that said it was all "myth" only posted opinions rather than uncontested empirical data.  I saw it, myself, and I have had dozens of others who witnessed it or were spit on themselves.

You guys are flat wrong, period.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

Lasher said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Lasher is in touch with his "pathetic, pitiful" inner Lasher and projects on those who are better informed.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Got plagiarism?  Nothing new?  No originality?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

Got the truth, which you don't, Lasher, and I set the quote apart.

Get in touch with your little Lasher and sneak away. 

You simply do not have what it takes to play here.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Got the truth, which you don't, Lasher, and I set the quote apart.
> 
> Get in touch with your little Lasher and sneak away.
> 
> You simply do not have what it takes to play here. *Edited*



You are right, old sock, but Lash won't be going anywhere.  You are a fool.  You Jew stooges and Zionist kikes would love for Lash to leave, but it ain't gonna happen, Izzy.

*Do not changed other posters quotes
PixieStix*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Got the truth, which you don't, Lasher, and I set the quote apart.
> ...



Changing others' quotes will get you sent on vacation, Old Lash, just to let you know.  You call names, yet you get mad when same is returned.  You hate Jews, which is OK, if stupid.  Stay and pay.  Simple as that.


----------



## Lasher (Jul 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


..

Sounds like your gerbil is twisting around up in there or something.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 19, 2011)

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lasher said:
> ...



How sad to be you.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jul 19, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> ...


The idiots on the left want to spend our money on stupid things. STOP THE SPENDING!!!


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jul 19, 2011)

theHawk said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> ...


Because they are addicts and have spent their lives away for their addictions. But lets just let the gov't via the tax payers support them. Idiots.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jul 19, 2011)

Lasher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Got the truth, which you don't, Lasher, and I set the quote apart.
> ...


I know where you will be going idiot and it is very warm there. The Jews are smarter than you , muslims, and obamaturd. Idiot!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

Lasher is such a silly little twit. 

Takes all kinds.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> False premise, Hawk, and if that is all you have now, you fail.  If you will not take care of those who took care of you, then see how easy it is to show that you are an ungrateful freak?  For shame.




Nice to see you can't answer the question honestly.
 


We already have programs that help veterans.  So it is your premise that is false.

But go ahead and keep calling this veteran an "ungrateful freak".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 19, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill&#x202c;&rlm;



Where is that Democratic budget again? I thin there should be no laws passed until we actually have one, not to mention the fact that we will be broke in two weeks, and all the Democrats can think about is spending more money.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 19, 2011)

rdean said:


> The middle class exists only as "cannon fodder" for the rich.  I thought that was understood.



The middle class are homeless now?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

theHawk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False premise, Hawk, and if that is all you have now, you fail.  If you will not take care of those who took care of you, then see how easy it is to show that you are an ungrateful freak?  For shame.
> ...



Completely and honestly answered. You are ungrateful for those who stood up for you, but you can't man up for them.  Shame on you.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill&#x202c;&rlm;



You guys are shameless, Pathetic, and obviously very Desperate. 

Fun stuff.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lasher said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



you're better informed? since when ? you cannot even hold a reasonable conversation...


----------



## Trajan (Jul 19, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




sorry, NO,  we do that now or as QW said submit a fucking budget for once..its only been 2 years,....

and do me a favor;  don't thank me for anything, I don't care what you think is 'reasonable', you are hardly an authority.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

Trajan, who cannot critically analyze and stumbles in discussion, is good for grins and chuckles.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jul 19, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog
> 
> Senate conservatives blocked the  Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill,  introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special  benefits to homeless women  veterans (as well as to homeless male  veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45;  one in ten is a woman. Whats more, the increase in the number of  homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among  their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the  Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> YouTube - &#x202a;Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill&#x202c;&rlm;



This was a bill that was supposed to INCREASE the budget that already exists for homeless women veterans.  This isn't to create yet another unfunded entitlement program (and it doesn't make sense to start any new ones anyway) - -this is at least SOMEONE with enough brains left in their head to realize our government is running into the brick wall of REALITY that we can't pay the budgets for all these entitlement programs as they already exist -much less increase ANY of them!  Are you NUTS?   Think politicians will score big points with their constituents if they go back and home and say "yeah, I did my part to sink our government too by voting to increase the level of unfunded entitlement programs -because after all, who isn't in favor of helping out homeless women veterans?  Do we really care that we don't have the money for it and we are now just mere YEARS from total financial collapse of our government?  Oh, let's not talk about THAT -not when we can talk about all the warm touchy-feely things I can pretend I did by voting to increase the budget of a program that we already couldn't pay for in the first place!"  And oddly enough, this will strike a chord with total morons like you who just cannot grasp the dire situation our fucking politicians have placed this country.  All by promising one group after another money no one has and no one will EVER have.  So sure -how DARE those Republicans not vote to increase the budget of this entitlement program -those bad, evil Republicans who won't help to drive this nation to its knees.

Why should THIS budget be increased when we already can't pay for the level of entitlement spending that already exists?  We are in a discussion about how much they are going to get CUT -not increased!  We can't pay for what already exists -including not being able to pay for this particular budget already.  So I guess you are stupid enough to think that any entitlement program YOU like in particular is more deserving than the others which are facing cuts?  It doesn't make me happy either but you DO understand that for every $1 our government spends, it MUST borrow 40 cents because we are BROKE.  We can't pay for everything that has already been promised to everyone -thanks to the dumbest, most self-centered and most short-sighted generation in my lifetime.  Well the party is over now and its time to clean up the mess and salvage what we can from it.  NOT increase or create still MORE entitlement programs!   

Ok so we increase the budget for THIS particular entitlement -but it means cutting the budget even MORE than is already scheduled for ...WHAT?  What other entitlement program will YOU say must have its budget cut even MORE than what is already going to have to happen JUST TO KEEP IT ALIVE.  Any CLUE how many government entitlement programs there are?  Any idea whether homeless women veterans can still access any of those?  Did you realize this particular entitlement program exists IN ADDITION to any other a homeless women veteran would have access to -and NOT in exchange for all the others so that homeless women veterans receive more benefits than a homeless woman who did not serve in the military.  But apparently you think it should be more in spite of the fact NO ONE CAN PAY FOR IT even without increasing it!  You have instant oatmeal brains and make your decisions based on whether a bill has a nice touchy-feely TITLE to it or not and not based on REALITY of whether you can even pay for it or not.  Not exactly a real heavy thinker, are you?

You morons who think the party can go on forever while running THE biggest Ponzi scheme in HISTORY on future generations think you are being "kind" and "caring" and are just full of shit.  What has been done in the name of "caring" is anything but and it now guarantees that for the first time in our history, the standard of living for our children and grandchildren will be significantly lower than it was for those who ran that Ponzi scheme on them.  Think homeless veteran women THEN will thank you for it when that entitlement disappears entirely along with half the others and the remaining will have a pittance budget?  The out of control spending spree, borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent is a recipe for disaster and we are fast approaching the time there will be NO funds left for ANY discretionary spending of any kind because every spare dime will have to go toward retiring our MASSIVE debt.  Then homeless women vets will lose their entire budget along with every other entitlement program.  What does it take to get through your head -we have NO business considering increasing ANY budget for ANY entitlement program.  WE CANNOT PAY FOR THE LEVEL THEY EXIST AT ALREADY.  Increasing any entitlement budget when our nation will face financial collapse before 2020 is beyond IMMORAL.  It is evil.  

By 2016 unless something drastic changes -the US will owe more money than all the currency in circulation from every nation combined.  Can you even try to wrap your head around that -because this is something *NO OTHER NATION in the world has ever done to itself.*  Its people like you who think bills are deemed desirable and affordable just by their title alone -and damn what's actually IN them, right? 

In less than 30 years the US went from being THE largest creditor nation on the planet -to not only the largest debtor nation on the planet -but the largest in HISTORY.  A better question than WHINING about not increasing the budget for entitlement programs in fact of impending financial COLLAPSE is to figure out how we got here in the first place.  

If bringing the US to the brink of financial collapse with unfunded entitlement programs with the Ponzi scheme that is on the brink of utter collapse -then pat yourself on the back.  You achieved your goal.  But keep in mind while pretending you are oh so RIGHTEOUS, when it does not only will homeless women veterans lose their ENTIRE budget -so will everyone else on an entitlement program.   What you are whining about is the MOST immoral choice that could be made -increase another entitlement program that is STILL unfunded and won't be paid for by the people demanding its increase.  If we can't pay for it ourselves, insisting a generation that had no voice in the decisions get stuck with the tab is breathtakingly immoral.

You want to increase spending for ANYTHING -specify where the money is coming from.  Who picks up the tab?  Right now not only is every single cent spoken for -we can't pay for 40% of our out control government budget right now without expanding the budget for ANY entitlement program.  Common sense and critical thinking skills just aren't your strong suits, are they?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 19, 2011)

FG, tell the Tea Party hold outs to back the compromise.  They will get far more than anyone would have believed two years ago.  Then let's take care of our veterans, who were willing to fight for you and who you are willing to throw out like garbage.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 20, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



To you idiots the only way to "man up" is to pay more taxes.
Or more accurately, demand that people with higher incomes than one's self pay higher taxes.  It doesn't matter how much you actually pay in taxes just that you want higher taxes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 20, 2011)

theHawk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



This is about veterans, not about your whiny ass being protected by veterans.  You moron.


----------



## DavidS (Jul 20, 2011)

theHawk said:


> The bill increases spending in an already existing program.  Sorry but where is this money going to come from?  Oh thats right, borrow it.   Borrow more to spend more.



How many money do we spend on R&D of new weapons and new planes and new bombs?

Maybe we could use some of that money to help the people who fucking put their lives on the line to defend this country all of the other wars you Republicans send these people off to. "What's that? You put your life on the line in Iraq? Afghanistan? Great, thanks a lot. Now go be homeless." Fuck you, Hawk. That's a disgusting piece of shit attitude towards the people who have either died or been injured or have done nothing more than follow orders and head off to Iraq, been shot at and came home to nothing. Do you know what percentage of our American forces are on welfare and food stamps? Do you know that soldiers off in Iraq have to pay for their own uniforms to be cleaned? More money for the greedy corporate billionaires. 

This country treats its veterans like shit and it's disgusting. Why should anyone join the military after how we treat these people? Might as well disband the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force because, folks, we don't need 'em anymore. They return home after losing their jobs, their homes, their spouses, they come home to nothing.. and how does the US Government thank them? By giving them a big middle finger.

In 2010, we spent $685 billion in defense.

$685 billion.

And we can't find a home for these people? We can't find affordable housing? Disgusting.


----------

