Ed has been doing a lot of bragging lately about how big he is getting. At over a hundred stations and reaching a national audience as well as now our armed forces I think it is incumbent on Ed to perform at least a modicum of fact checking of the things he says on the air. While there are numerous examples of Ed's lies, mistakes, or whatever you want to call them, I will limit myself to two (for now) in order to save space. The two lies I hear most from Ed are as follows:
1. The Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits. Bull. The Bush administration has increased the rate of funding for veterans benefits at TWICE the rate of the Clinton administration. It was increased in real, inflation adjusted dollars, over 30% in his first term alone. These facts are easy to find out for yourself, but if you are lazy you can find an excellent summary of them at the non-partisan factcheck.org website at
www.factcheck.org/article144.html
2. Abortions have increased under the Bush presidency. Ed often says "That's a fact". Again, Bull. This statement has been espoused by Dems like Dean and H Clinton since before 2004 elections. These statements are based on a study that only incorporated 16 states. Since that study, the official government numbers indicate that abortions are DOWN under Bush and continue a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. Even the author of the 16 state study conceeds that in light of the more complete, current information his original conclusion was WRONG. Once again these things are easily checked, but for those who want it done for them go to
www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I challenge Ed to admit on his show that these statements that he has repeatedly made over the last several months are FALSE! I don't expect him to do so, I live in Fargo and am accustomed to Ed's "style". If he won't admit it on his show then provide me with evidence that their have been any "cuts", real cuts, in veterans benefits since Bush came into office. Provide me with any evidence that abortion numbers are up in the 5+ years that Bush has been in office.
Full Version: Does Ed willfully lie or is he just lazy
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 8 2005, 01:31 PM)
Ed has been doing a lot of bragging lately about how big he is getting. At over a hundred stations and reaching a national audience as well as now our armed forces I think it is incumbent on Ed to perform at least a modicum of fact checking of the things he says on the air. While there are numerous examples of Ed's lies, mistakes, or whatever you want to call them, I will limit myself to two (for now) in order to save space. The two lies I hear most from Ed are as follows:
1. The Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits. Bull. The Bush administration has increased the rate of funding for veterans benefits at TWICE the rate of the Clinton administration. It was increased in real, inflation adjusted dollars, over 30% in his first term alone. These facts are easy to find out for yourself, but if you are lazy you can find an excellent summary of them at the non-partisan factcheck.org website at
www.factcheck.org/article144.html
2. Abortions have increased under the Bush presidency. Ed often says "That's a fact". Again, Bull. This statement has been espoused by Dems like Dean and H Clinton since before 2004 elections. These statements are based on a study that only incorporated 16 states. Since that study, the official government numbers indicate that abortions are DOWN under Bush and continue a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. Even the author of the 16 state study conceeds that in light of the more complete, current information his original conclusion was WRONG. Once again these things are easily checked, but for those who want it done for them go to
www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I challenge Ed to admit on his show that these statements that he has repeatedly made over the last several months are FALSE! I don't expect him to do so, I live in Fargo and am accustomed to Ed's "style". If he won't admit it on his show then provide me with evidence that their have been any "cuts", real cuts, in veterans benefits since Bush came into office. Provide me with any evidence that abortion numbers are up in the 5+ years that Bush has been in office.
1. The Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits. Bull. The Bush administration has increased the rate of funding for veterans benefits at TWICE the rate of the Clinton administration. It was increased in real, inflation adjusted dollars, over 30% in his first term alone. These facts are easy to find out for yourself, but if you are lazy you can find an excellent summary of them at the non-partisan factcheck.org website at
www.factcheck.org/article144.html
2. Abortions have increased under the Bush presidency. Ed often says "That's a fact". Again, Bull. This statement has been espoused by Dems like Dean and H Clinton since before 2004 elections. These statements are based on a study that only incorporated 16 states. Since that study, the official government numbers indicate that abortions are DOWN under Bush and continue a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. Even the author of the 16 state study conceeds that in light of the more complete, current information his original conclusion was WRONG. Once again these things are easily checked, but for those who want it done for them go to
www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I challenge Ed to admit on his show that these statements that he has repeatedly made over the last several months are FALSE! I don't expect him to do so, I live in Fargo and am accustomed to Ed's "style". If he won't admit it on his show then provide me with evidence that their have been any "cuts", real cuts, in veterans benefits since Bush came into office. Provide me with any evidence that abortion numbers are up in the 5+ years that Bush has been in office.
If he didn't answer on his show, what makes you think he'd answer here? I stopped listening to him when he chose "cherry picked" and truncated sound bites that were taken totally out of context.
He isn't that good.
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 8 2005, 01:31 PM)
Ed has been doing a lot of bragging lately about how big he is getting. At over a hundred stations and reaching a national audience as well as now our armed forces I think it is incumbent on Ed to perform at least a modicum of fact checking of the things he says on the air. While there are numerous examples of Ed's lies, mistakes, or whatever you want to call them, I will limit myself to two (for now) in order to save space. The two lies I hear most from Ed are as follows:
1. The Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits. Bull. The Bush administration has increased the rate of funding for veterans benefits at TWICE the rate of the Clinton administration. It was increased in real, inflation adjusted dollars, over 30% in his first term alone. These facts are easy to find out for yourself, but if you are lazy you can find an excellent summary of them at the non-partisan factcheck.org website at
www.factcheck.org/article144.html
2. Abortions have increased under the Bush presidency. Ed often says "That's a fact". Again, Bull. This statement has been espoused by Dems like Dean and H Clinton since before 2004 elections. These statements are based on a study that only incorporated 16 states. Since that study, the official government numbers indicate that abortions are DOWN under Bush and continue a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. Even the author of the 16 state study conceeds that in light of the more complete, current information his original conclusion was WRONG. Once again these things are easily checked, but for those who want it done for them go to
www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I challenge Ed to admit on his show that these statements that he has repeatedly made over the last several months are FALSE! I don't expect him to do so, I live in Fargo and am accustomed to Ed's "style". If he won't admit it on his show then provide me with evidence that their have been any "cuts", real cuts, in veterans benefits since Bush came into office. Provide me with any evidence that abortion numbers are up in the 5+ years that Bush has been in office.
1. The Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits. Bull. The Bush administration has increased the rate of funding for veterans benefits at TWICE the rate of the Clinton administration. It was increased in real, inflation adjusted dollars, over 30% in his first term alone. These facts are easy to find out for yourself, but if you are lazy you can find an excellent summary of them at the non-partisan factcheck.org website at
www.factcheck.org/article144.html
2. Abortions have increased under the Bush presidency. Ed often says "That's a fact". Again, Bull. This statement has been espoused by Dems like Dean and H Clinton since before 2004 elections. These statements are based on a study that only incorporated 16 states. Since that study, the official government numbers indicate that abortions are DOWN under Bush and continue a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. Even the author of the 16 state study conceeds that in light of the more complete, current information his original conclusion was WRONG. Once again these things are easily checked, but for those who want it done for them go to
www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I challenge Ed to admit on his show that these statements that he has repeatedly made over the last several months are FALSE! I don't expect him to do so, I live in Fargo and am accustomed to Ed's "style". If he won't admit it on his show then provide me with evidence that their have been any "cuts", real cuts, in veterans benefits since Bush came into office. Provide me with any evidence that abortion numbers are up in the 5+ years that Bush has been in office.
Have you ever tried calling the show with your facts?
QUOTE(Hughie @ Dec 8 2005, 04:46 PM)
Have you ever tried calling the show with your facts?
I haven't called in a while. I never have with these facts, but I have e-mailed corrections to his misstatements several times and gotten no response. I got an email back from "the sherriff" re this post and I think he is going to move it to the "general" area so that our leftist friends can comment on it.
I wanted to see how this goes, but if a person wanted to he could talk to Ed all show long every day about either his or his listner's misstatements. I couldn't listen much today, but just for example a caller said Tookie should get clemency because Sirhan Sirhan and Manson were serving life. The fact is both received death sentences at the time of their trials but the SCOTUS overturned the death penalty in the seventies and states had to rewrite their death penalty statutes in order to resume the death penalty. All those on death row at the time were commuted to life in prison including I'm sure Manson and I think Sirhan Sirhan.
Other examples abound, but as I said, I wanted to see how this goes to determine how much time I want to put into it
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 8 2005, 04:02 PM)
I haven't called in a while. I never have with these facts, but I have e-mailed corrections to his misstatements several times and gotten no response. I got an email back from "the sherriff" re this post and I think he is going to move it to the "general" area so that our leftist friends can comment on it.
I wanted to see how this goes, but if a person wanted to he could talk to Ed all show long every day about either his or his listner's misstatements. I couldn't listen much today, but just for example a caller said Tookie should get clemency because Sirhan Sirhan and Manson were serving life. The fact is both received death sentences at the time of their trials but the SCOTUS overturned the death penalty in the seventies and states had to rewrite their death penalty statutes in order to resume the death penalty. All those on death row at the time were commuted to life in prison including I'm sure Manson and I think Sirhan Sirhan.
Other examples abound, but as I said, I wanted to see how this goes to determine how much time I want to put into it
I wanted to see how this goes, but if a person wanted to he could talk to Ed all show long every day about either his or his listner's misstatements. I couldn't listen much today, but just for example a caller said Tookie should get clemency because Sirhan Sirhan and Manson were serving life. The fact is both received death sentences at the time of their trials but the SCOTUS overturned the death penalty in the seventies and states had to rewrite their death penalty statutes in order to resume the death penalty. All those on death row at the time were commuted to life in prison including I'm sure Manson and I think Sirhan Sirhan.
Other examples abound, but as I said, I wanted to see how this goes to determine how much time I want to put into it
Everyone:
I moved this thread from the Conservative Only to the General Boad, with Tom Paine's consent.
Feel free to correct him where needed ... or back him up if so desired!!! Cheers.
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 8 2005, 02:31 PM)
Ed has been doing a lot of bragging lately about how big he is getting. At over a hundred stations and reaching a national audience as well as now our armed forces I think it is incumbent on Ed to perform at least a modicum of fact checking of the things he says on the air. While there are numerous examples of Ed's lies, mistakes, or whatever you want to call them, I will limit myself to two (for now) in order to save space. The two lies I hear most from Ed are as follows:
1. The Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits. Bull. The Bush administration has increased the rate of funding for veterans benefits at TWICE the rate of the Clinton administration. It was increased in real, inflation adjusted dollars, over 30% in his first term alone. These facts are easy to find out for yourself, but if you are lazy you can find an excellent summary of them at the non-partisan factcheck.org website at
www.factcheck.org/article144.html
2. Abortions have increased under the Bush presidency. Ed often says "That's a fact". Again, Bull. This statement has been espoused by Dems like Dean and H Clinton since before 2004 elections. These statements are based on a study that only incorporated 16 states. Since that study, the official government numbers indicate that abortions are DOWN under Bush and continue a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. Even the author of the 16 state study conceeds that in light of the more complete, current information his original conclusion was WRONG. Once again these things are easily checked, but for those who want it done for them go to
www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I challenge Ed to admit on his show that these statements that he has repeatedly made over the last several months are FALSE! I don't expect him to do so, I live in Fargo and am accustomed to Ed's "style". If he won't admit it on his show then provide me with evidence that their have been any "cuts", real cuts, in veterans benefits since Bush came into office. Provide me with any evidence that abortion numbers are up in the 5+ years that Bush has been in office.
1. The Bush Administration has cut veterans benefits. Bull. The Bush administration has increased the rate of funding for veterans benefits at TWICE the rate of the Clinton administration. It was increased in real, inflation adjusted dollars, over 30% in his first term alone. These facts are easy to find out for yourself, but if you are lazy you can find an excellent summary of them at the non-partisan factcheck.org website at
www.factcheck.org/article144.html
2. Abortions have increased under the Bush presidency. Ed often says "That's a fact". Again, Bull. This statement has been espoused by Dems like Dean and H Clinton since before 2004 elections. These statements are based on a study that only incorporated 16 states. Since that study, the official government numbers indicate that abortions are DOWN under Bush and continue a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. Even the author of the 16 state study conceeds that in light of the more complete, current information his original conclusion was WRONG. Once again these things are easily checked, but for those who want it done for them go to
www.factcheck.org/article330.html
I challenge Ed to admit on his show that these statements that he has repeatedly made over the last several months are FALSE! I don't expect him to do so, I live in Fargo and am accustomed to Ed's "style". If he won't admit it on his show then provide me with evidence that their have been any "cuts", real cuts, in veterans benefits since Bush came into office. Provide me with any evidence that abortion numbers are up in the 5+ years that Bush has been in office.
I don't know about the abortion numbers, but I will try to check them out. As for the veteran's benefits numbers, yes they have gone up under Bush. So have the numbers of veterans who will be requiring the services of the VA since we invaded Iraq. Before Bush took office there were not 5,000 or more serious injuries taking place every year so there was not a rapid expansion of veterans services needed. Even with that, I recall Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) being voted down by the Republican Senate when she introduced legislation to increase veterans funding earlier this year. The argument was that we were going to be closing Veteran's Hospitals and service centers in order to save money. When the VA called for increased spending to take care of the increasing number of returning disabled veterans from Iraq, that same Republican-controlled Senate quickly took up the measure and passed it through, quickly followed by the House.
In short, there has been an overall increase in total dollars in the VA budget since Bush took office. That increase has not begun to keep up with the increased demand for veterans services, so you could say that realistically there has been a decrease in funding per veteran since Bush took office. I believe that is what Ed is getting at when he states that there has been a decrease in veteran's funding since Bush took office.
QUOTE(aleman1948 @ Dec 8 2005, 05:33 PM)
IThat increase has not begun to keep up with the increased demand for veterans services, so you could say that realistically there has been a decrease in funding per veteran since Bush took office. I believe that is what Ed is getting at when he states that there has been a decrease in veteran's funding since Bush took office.
Bingo!
I take offense to this guys user name.
I've read everything Thomas Paine wrote. Thomas Paine would have done his research before posting.
I've read everything Thomas Paine wrote. Thomas Paine would have done his research before posting.
QUOTE
I've read everything Thomas Paine wrote. Thomas Paine would have done his research before posting.
actually some of what he has posted is well researched. The annenburg foundations factcheck.org is highly credible in my book.
The claim about the veterans benifits is false for the reasons already sited above.
QUOTE(Kenny @ Dec 8 2005, 08:02 PM)
I take offense to this guys user name.
I've read everything Thomas Paine wrote. Thomas Paine would have done his research before posting.
I've read everything Thomas Paine wrote. Thomas Paine would have done his research before posting.
Of course you have a problem
you seem to always have a problem with anyone from the OTHER side. I had you pegged from the beginning
QUOTE(Hughie @ Dec 8 2005, 09:09 PM)
Of course you have a problem you seem to always have a problem with anyone from the OTHER side. I had you pegged from the beginning
you seem to always have a problem with anyone from the OTHER side. I had you pegged from the beginning So, do you have a rebuttal for what I posted on the veterans benefits statements that TomPaine made to start this thread?
QUOTE(aleman1948 @ Dec 8 2005, 08:11 PM)
So, do you have a rebuttal for what I posted on the veterans benefits statements that TomPaine made to start this thread?
I would hope that money would be allocated as it is needed. I would not want to allocate prior to the need.
QUOTE
Of course you have a problem tongue.gif you seem to always have a problem with anyone from the OTHER side. I had you pegged from the beginning tongue.gif
You didn't read my very next post Hughie. So you're kind of a jerk.
Since you missed it here it is:
QUOTE
actually some of what he has posted is well researched. The annenburg foundations factcheck.org is highly credible in my book.
The claim about the veterans benifits is false for the reasons already sited above.
The claim about the veterans benifits is false for the reasons already sited above.
I'm often wrong, but never dishonest. At least not intentionally.
I imagine Ed has the same problem.
QUOTE(Hughie @ Dec 8 2005, 05:14 PM)
I would hope that money would be allocated.
Note the operative verb in Hugie's political beliefs. Must believe in faith-based government.
QUOTE(Kenny @ Dec 8 2005, 08:19 PM)
You didn't read my very next post Hughie. So you're kind of a jerk.
Since you missed it here it is:
I'm often wrong, but never dishonest. At least not intentionally.
I imagine Ed has the same problem.
Since you missed it here it is:
I'm often wrong, but never dishonest. At least not intentionally.
I imagine Ed has the same problem.
Then I apologize
QUOTE(Secular Humanist @ Dec 8 2005, 08:20 PM)
Note the operative verb in Hugie's political beliefs. Must believe in faith-based government.
As God is my witness
QUOTE
Then I apologize
No problem. I probably would have done the same to you.
I'm kind of a jerk too...you know...in case you haven't noticed.
QUOTE(Hughie @ Dec 8 2005, 09:14 PM)
I would hope that money would be allocated as it is needed. I would not want to allocate prior to the need.
The problem with waiting to allocate funds for programs like the VA is that you often end up short. The war against terrorism is a good example. The Bush administration did not anticipate large numbers of severely injured and disabled veterans returning from Iraq. When this happened, they still did not call for increasing funding for VA programs. Instead they called for closures of VA hospitals and outpatient clinics. When a Democrat called for an increase in funding to cover the large numbers of severely injured vets, the Republicans defeated the legislation on a largely party-line vote. When the VA later (within a month) called for increased funding, the Republicans responded by passing the very bill that they had voted down earlier.
That is the problem with waiting for the need before allocating the money.
I bet TOM PAINE and O WELL are the same people.....must be some guy with split personality.....They see things that normal people don't.....Can I call him nutcase ?????
LOOKS WHO IS TALKING ABOUT FACTS.....IF YOU LISTEN TO RIGHT WING NUTS TOO MUCH, TRUTH IS SOMETHING THAT YOU DELETE FROM YOUR DICTIONARY......NEXT PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!
LOOKS WHO IS TALKING ABOUT FACTS.....IF YOU LISTEN TO RIGHT WING NUTS TOO MUCH, TRUTH IS SOMETHING THAT YOU DELETE FROM YOUR DICTIONARY......NEXT PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE(ESS Sheriff @ Dec 8 2005, 06:07 PM)
Everyone:
I moved this thread from the Conservative Only to the General Boad, with Tom Paine's consent.
Feel free to correct him where needed ... or back him up if so desired!!! Cheers.
I moved this thread from the Conservative Only to the General Boad, with Tom Paine's consent.
Feel free to correct him where needed ... or back him up if so desired!!! Cheers.
Thanks Sherriff....Let them swim in their little pond.
QUOTE
Everyone:
I moved this thread from the Conservative Only to the General Boad, with Tom Paine's consent.
Feel free to correct him where needed ... or back him up if so desired!!! Cheers.
I moved this thread from the Conservative Only to the General Boad, with Tom Paine's consent.
Feel free to correct him where needed ... or back him up if so desired!!! Cheers.
Does this mean he's a self identified conservative? Cause he has no right using that name if he is.
QUOTE(aleman1948 @ Dec 8 2005, 09:30 PM)
The problem with waiting to allocate funds for programs like the VA is that you often end up short. The war against terrorism is a good example. The Bush administration did not anticipate large numbers of severely injured and disabled veterans returning from Iraq. When this happened, they still did not call for increasing funding for VA programs. Instead they called for closures of VA hospitals and outpatient clinics. When a Democrat called for an increase in funding to cover the large numbers of severely injured vets, the Republicans defeated the legislation on a largely party-line vote. When the VA later (within a month) called for increased funding, the Republicans responded by passing the very bill that they had voted down earlier.
That is the problem with waiting for the need before allocating the money.
That is the problem with waiting for the need before allocating the money.
However they are well aware now of the number of new vets needing services and the budget still has not been altered to fill the void between increases and limited services.
As far as Ed using the statistics for abortion, he's been using a study that has been commonly treated as factual. I believed it, too, until a little research gave me a surprise. In reality, it may not be possbile to realisticly meeasure the number of abortions. Consdier the quoite from this article http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/#SU :
Official abortion statistics are often low due to incomplete reporting. In the United States, for example, not all states mandate such reporting. Even in those states that require or encourage reporting of abortion statistics, this reporting is incomplete (as demonstrated by higher numbers reported to abortion advocacy organizations). From 1988 to 1997, the total number of U.S. abortions reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control was 11.3% lower than the total number reported to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research branch of Planned Parenthood). In 1998 four states discontinued state-level gathering of abortion statistics, contributing to the 25.4% drop in CDC figures from 1997 to 1998.
In contrast, other organizations that provide estimates of abortion statistics may be motivated to inflate the numbers. Currently, the Alan Guttmacher Institute is an important source for estimates of both legal and illegal abortions worldwide. AGI is an extension of an organization engaged in intense political lobbying for the completely unrestrained practice of abortion. High abortion rates are in their political (and financial) interests for a number of reasons. For example, high numbers of illegal abortions are an element of their rationalization for legalized abortion.
Thus, when AGI estimates high rates of illegal abortions in the developing world these estimates bear scrutiny. Many such estimates are based on limited surveys. Some such surveys are limited to urban areas, which are not representative of rural areas. Other studies use compound assumptions to develop a figure for illegal abortions from data on hospitalizations for miscarriages.
Few pro-life organizations conduct their own statistical research, but such groups that make estimates of abortion numbers may also be inclined to accept higher figures as worst-case scenarios.
Just like the issue of abortion itself, trying to measure the actual number of abortions may prove rather diifficult. I doubt that Ed knew this when he quoted the original study mentionned by Mr. Paine, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt- it was the error of omission rather than the sin of commission . Having said that, the discrepancy should be brought to Ed's attention.
Another thought: since attitudes about abortion vary from state to state (and even communtiy to community within a state), it is not only possible but likely for part of the decrease in abortions to be due to lack of access and/or funding at a state/local level. These factors should be taken into account when we discuss abortion,
Official abortion statistics are often low due to incomplete reporting. In the United States, for example, not all states mandate such reporting. Even in those states that require or encourage reporting of abortion statistics, this reporting is incomplete (as demonstrated by higher numbers reported to abortion advocacy organizations). From 1988 to 1997, the total number of U.S. abortions reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control was 11.3% lower than the total number reported to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research branch of Planned Parenthood). In 1998 four states discontinued state-level gathering of abortion statistics, contributing to the 25.4% drop in CDC figures from 1997 to 1998.
In contrast, other organizations that provide estimates of abortion statistics may be motivated to inflate the numbers. Currently, the Alan Guttmacher Institute is an important source for estimates of both legal and illegal abortions worldwide. AGI is an extension of an organization engaged in intense political lobbying for the completely unrestrained practice of abortion. High abortion rates are in their political (and financial) interests for a number of reasons. For example, high numbers of illegal abortions are an element of their rationalization for legalized abortion.
Thus, when AGI estimates high rates of illegal abortions in the developing world these estimates bear scrutiny. Many such estimates are based on limited surveys. Some such surveys are limited to urban areas, which are not representative of rural areas. Other studies use compound assumptions to develop a figure for illegal abortions from data on hospitalizations for miscarriages.
Few pro-life organizations conduct their own statistical research, but such groups that make estimates of abortion numbers may also be inclined to accept higher figures as worst-case scenarios.
Just like the issue of abortion itself, trying to measure the actual number of abortions may prove rather diifficult. I doubt that Ed knew this when he quoted the original study mentionned by Mr. Paine, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt- it was the error of omission rather than the sin of commission . Having said that, the discrepancy should be brought to Ed's attention.
Another thought: since attitudes about abortion vary from state to state (and even communtiy to community within a state), it is not only possible but likely for part of the decrease in abortions to be due to lack of access and/or funding at a state/local level. These factors should be taken into account when we discuss abortion,
QUOTE(ESS Sheriff @ Dec 8 2005, 08:55 PM)
Bingo!
Bingo Sherriff? Bingo? Do you libs even read the research provided or do any of your own? The factcheck.org site shows demonstrably how the vetrans spending benefits have gone up and lists specifically the facts regarding no vetran has had his benefits cut off. It shows how the spending went up well before the invasion of Iraq and any additional soldiers were injured. Besides this, even with the 5,000 severly injured number do you really think that would add over 30% in real terms to vetrans that are aging and have injuries from every war from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 et al? 5,000 more? Do you people have a clue how many were injured in these other confllicts?
Spending per vetran reduced? Nonsense. Bingo? Come on, I simply asked you for ANY evidence. You have a theory that is prepostorous on its face with NO evidence to back it up. Other than being called a "nut case" by a guy with an infantile "Buck Fush" logo on his post do you people have any evidence at all to support your BS? I didn't think so. I noticed nobody bothered at all to address Ed's "abortions are up" Crap. Tell Ed to either provide some evidence or admit he is full of it on his show.
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 8 2005, 10:21 PM)
Bingo Sherriff? Bingo? Do you libs even read the research provided or do any of your own? The factcheck.org site shows demonstrably how the vetrans spending benefits have gone up and lists specifically the facts regarding no vetran has had his benefits cut off. It shows how the spending went up well before the invasion of Iraq and any additional soldiers were injured. Besides this, even with the 5,000 severly injured number do you really think that would add over 30% in real terms to vetrans that are aging and have injuries from every war from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 et al? 5,000 more? Do you people have a clue how many were injured in these other confllicts?
Spending per vetran reduced? Nonsense. Bingo? Come on, I simply asked you for ANY evidence. You have a theory that is prepostorous on its face with NO evidence to back it up. Other than being called a "nut case" by a guy with an infantile "Buck Fush" logo on his post do you people have any evidence at all to support your BS? I didn't think so. I noticed nobody bothered at all to address Ed's "abortions are up" Crap. Tell Ed to either provide some evidence or admit he is full of it on his show.
Spending per vetran reduced? Nonsense. Bingo? Come on, I simply asked you for ANY evidence. You have a theory that is prepostorous on its face with NO evidence to back it up. Other than being called a "nut case" by a guy with an infantile "Buck Fush" logo on his post do you people have any evidence at all to support your BS? I didn't think so. I noticed nobody bothered at all to address Ed's "abortions are up" Crap. Tell Ed to either provide some evidence or admit he is full of it on his show.
QUOTE
Lacks meaningful investment in veterans’ health care. The budget proposes $27.1 billion for VA medical care, just a 1.3 percent increase over the amount appropriated for Fiscal Year 2004. Hundreds of thousands of veterans are waiting 6 months or more for an initial doctor’s appointment, and some veterans in certain parts of the country have reported waiting times of up to 2 years. The funding level the President is proposing does not even keep pace with medical inflation and will do nothing to help these veterans see their physician more quickly.
Proposes new increases in the costs of veterans’ health care. The President has again asked Congress to impose an annual enrollment fee of $250 on Category 7 and 8 veterans in order to receive health care, and to more than double the prescription drug co-pay on these same veterans. These changes could force as many as 200,000 out of the VA system altogether and discourage up to one million veterans from enrolling for care in the first place. Congress rightly rejected these proposals last year and should do so again this year.
Slashes funding for veterans’ programs. This budget makes cuts in the nursing home program for veterans, which would mean the loss of care for more than 8,000 people. Funding would also be cut for VA employees needed to process disability and other benefit claims. 465,000 veterans are currently awaiting a decision on their claims and another 148,000 have appeals awaiting action. Additionally, the budget would reduce the number of VA home loans by 50,000, and $50 million would be cut from the VA’s medical and research programs.
http://www.house.gov/levin/veterans_resources2.html
Proposes new increases in the costs of veterans’ health care. The President has again asked Congress to impose an annual enrollment fee of $250 on Category 7 and 8 veterans in order to receive health care, and to more than double the prescription drug co-pay on these same veterans. These changes could force as many as 200,000 out of the VA system altogether and discourage up to one million veterans from enrolling for care in the first place. Congress rightly rejected these proposals last year and should do so again this year.
Slashes funding for veterans’ programs. This budget makes cuts in the nursing home program for veterans, which would mean the loss of care for more than 8,000 people. Funding would also be cut for VA employees needed to process disability and other benefit claims. 465,000 veterans are currently awaiting a decision on their claims and another 148,000 have appeals awaiting action. Additionally, the budget would reduce the number of VA home loans by 50,000, and $50 million would be cut from the VA’s medical and research programs.
http://www.house.gov/levin/veterans_resources2.html
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 8 2005, 11:21 PM)
Bingo Sherriff? Bingo? Do you libs even read the research provided or do any of your own? The factcheck.org site shows demonstrably how the vetrans spending benefits have gone up and lists specifically the facts regarding no vetran has had his benefits cut off. It shows how the spending went up well before the invasion of Iraq and any additional soldiers were injured. Besides this, even with the 5,000 severly injured number do you really think that would add over 30% in real terms to vetrans that are aging and have injuries from every war from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 et al? 5,000 more? Do you people have a clue how many were injured in these other confllicts?
Spending per vetran reduced? Nonsense. Bingo? Come on, I simply asked you for ANY evidence. You have a theory that is prepostorous on its face with NO evidence to back it up. Other than being called a "nut case" by a guy with an infantile "Buck Fush" logo on his post do you people have any evidence at all to support your BS? I didn't think so. I noticed nobody bothered at all to address Ed's "abortions are up" Crap. Tell Ed to either provide some evidence or admit he is full of it on his show.
Spending per vetran reduced? Nonsense. Bingo? Come on, I simply asked you for ANY evidence. You have a theory that is prepostorous on its face with NO evidence to back it up. Other than being called a "nut case" by a guy with an infantile "Buck Fush" logo on his post do you people have any evidence at all to support your BS? I didn't think so. I noticed nobody bothered at all to address Ed's "abortions are up" Crap. Tell Ed to either provide some evidence or admit he is full of it on his show.
ooooooh !!! Did I offend you with BUCKFUSH.....What about your club Gitmo apparel that i am sure you must have...what do you have to say about that....Can you answer few questions ??
1. What are your views about rights of minorities ??
2. Where do you stand on Human rights and eqality for all ??
3. What do you have to say about black who were lynched in the past ??
4. What about the comments made by Bill Bennet about blacks ? Do you agree with them ?
5. How about KKK and other white supremacist groups ?? What are your views about these groups ??
.....I got a lot more questions......
HOw many friends do you have who are blacks, brown or any other minority ??
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 9 2005, 12:21 AM)
Bingo Sherriff? Bingo? Do you libs even read the research provided or do any of your own? The factcheck.org site shows demonstrably how the vetrans spending benefits have gone up and lists specifically the facts regarding no vetran has had his benefits cut off. It shows how the spending went up well before the invasion of Iraq and any additional soldiers were injured. Besides this, even with the 5,000 severly injured number do you really think that would add over 30% in real terms to vetrans that are aging and have injuries from every war from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 et al? 5,000 more? Do you people have a clue how many were injured in these other confllicts?
Spending per vetran reduced? Nonsense. Bingo? Come on, I simply asked you for ANY evidence. You have a theory that is prepostorous on its face with NO evidence to back it up. Other than being called a "nut case" by a guy with an infantile "Buck Fush" logo on his post do you people have any evidence at all to support your BS? I didn't think so. I noticed nobody bothered at all to address Ed's "abortions are up" Crap. Tell Ed to either provide some evidence or admit he is full of it on his show.
Spending per vetran reduced? Nonsense. Bingo? Come on, I simply asked you for ANY evidence. You have a theory that is prepostorous on its face with NO evidence to back it up. Other than being called a "nut case" by a guy with an infantile "Buck Fush" logo on his post do you people have any evidence at all to support your BS? I didn't think so. I noticed nobody bothered at all to address Ed's "abortions are up" Crap. Tell Ed to either provide some evidence or admit he is full of it on his show.
Spending for veterans programs went up IN SPITE OF BUSH. His budgets called for small increases (1.3% increase from 2003 to 2004) even though the war in Iraq had been going on for a year at that point. There was an increase in severaly injured and disabled veterans returning from war at that time and yet the "compassionate" conservative could only find a 1.3% increase in funding appropriate for them. As I pointed out before, a large portion of that increase came through the efforts of Patty Murray (D-WA), who was at first rebuffed along party lines and then had her legislation passed after the VA screamed for more funding. It is disengenuous to claim that funding has increased under Bush when he and his party were forced into those increases by the opposition party and a public outcry after they had voted the very same increase down.
Just where did you get that 30% figure anyway? Show me the link. Give me some facts here to back up your claim. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.
QUOTE(lenzy1000 @ Dec 9 2005, 12:33 AM)
Nice try "Ed Head", but using propaganda from a lib congressman isn't exactly research. But just for fun lets use his info. A 1.7 % increase over 2004 is NOT a cut. Even assuming his numbers are correct this 1.7% increase would be on top of the increases Bush has already made. As the chart at the fact check web site shows the amount spent in real dollars in the last year of Bubbas presidency was 44 billlion, the amount to be spent in 2005 is 65 billion. Ed has stated numerous times that Bush has "CUT veterans benefits". Bull
Re the rest of your post. Do you know what a class 7 and 8 veteran is? It is those who a) are at at least 80% of their regions income level and
don't have service related injuries. Clinton also had restrictions on what benefits these veterans were eligible for. RE lines and so on you can read every vets request for the last 60 years and find the same thing.The request was simple, provide me with evidence that Bush cut veterans benefits. Since he has increased annual spending in real terms from 44 billion to 65 billion you won't be able to do so.
QUOTE(unitedwestand @ Dec 9 2005, 12:33 AM)
ooooooh !!! Did I offend you with BUCKFUSH.....What about your club Gitmo apparel that i am sure you must have...what do you have to say about that....Can you answer few questions ??
1. What are your views about rights of minorities ??
2. Where do you stand on Human rights and eqality for all ??
3. What do you have to say about black who were lynched in the past ??
4. What about the comments made by Bill Bennet about blacks ? Do you agree with them ?
5. How about KKK and other white supremacist groups ?? What are your views about these groups ??
.....I got a lot more questions......
HOw many friends do you have who are blacks, brown or any other minority ??
1. What are your views about rights of minorities ??
2. Where do you stand on Human rights and eqality for all ??
3. What do you have to say about black who were lynched in the past ??
4. What about the comments made by Bill Bennet about blacks ? Do you agree with them ?
5. How about KKK and other white supremacist groups ?? What are your views about these groups ??
.....I got a lot more questions......
HOw many friends do you have who are blacks, brown or any other minority ??
Well, it is irrelevant to my question but since you asked I don't have any "club gitmo" gear and I wasn't offended by your "Buck Fush" I was merely pointing out that it was infantile. RE your other questions:
1. I feel the same way about minority rights as Dr. King, I believe a man should be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. This means that racial quotas are just as wrong as descrimination against certain races. In either case a person is given preference on the basis of race.
2. Human rights and equality for all? The US marine corps has done more to advance human rights and human freedom and equality in this worldthan Desmond Tu Tu, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi combined and tripled.
3. Blacks lynched in the past was terrible. Maybe you should pick up a history book, these lynchings were carried out by good democrats in the south with the knowing approval of elected democrat officials. All white, all democrat juries generally aquitted the culprits. It is a tremendous black mark on the democratic party.
4. Bill Bennet was making a point to a caller that is unwise to make an argument regarding abortion in the context of values to society. The caller had said that you could argue against abortion by saying it deprived society of millions of taxpayers. Bennet responded by saying it was not a good argument because people with despicable ideas (and he cited a book) could just as easily argue things like aborting blacks would reduce crime. He clearly identified it as a despicable argument and stated that he didn't agree with it. I urge you to listen to the entire call. Why do you think Ed refused to air the entire call?
5. Again the KKK and other white supremecist groups all have their roots in the democratic party. Former Grand Kleeg of the KKK Robert Byrd is STILL a US democrat Senator from West Virginia. The only known example of a KKK member running as a republican is David Duke, who also ran as a democrat. Both national parties denounced him and rightly so. All other KKK members including the one appointed to the Supreme Court (Hugo Black) was a democrat (appointed by a democrat)
RE How many friends to I have that are minorities. I don't count them, but my wife is a native american, my college roommate was black, I grew up within 1 mile of an Indian Reservation in SD and nearly half my school was native American. About half of my friends from my youth are native american.
What are your other questions?
QUOTE(aleman1948 @ Dec 9 2005, 01:40 AM)
Spending for veterans programs went up IN SPITE OF BUSH. His budgets called for small increases (1.3% increase from 2003 to 2004) even though the war in Iraq had been going on for a year at that point. There was an increase in severaly injured and disabled veterans returning from war at that time and yet the "compassionate" conservative could only find a 1.3% increase in funding appropriate for them. As I pointed out before, a large portion of that increase came through the efforts of Patty Murray (D-WA), who was at first rebuffed along party lines and then had her legislation passed after the VA screamed for more funding. It is disengenuous to claim that funding has increased under Bush when he and his party were forced into those increases by the opposition party and a public outcry after they had voted the very same increase down.
Just where did you get that 30% figure anyway? Show me the link. Give me some facts here to back up your claim. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.
Just where did you get that 30% figure anyway? Show me the link. Give me some facts here to back up your claim. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.
(sigh) I don't know what to do with you people. My original post HAD the facts including sources and a simple chart. Go to Factcheck.org/article144.html Even using your Bogus numbers you are admitting an INCREASE. My request was simple: Eddie has been claiming repeatedly for months that Bush CUT benefits. Whining about small increases with Bogus information does NOT show a CUT.
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 9 2005, 01:40 AM)
Nice try "Ed Head", but using propaganda from a lib congressman isn't exactly research. But just for fun lets use his info. A 1.7 % increase over 2004 is NOT a cut. Even assuming his numbers are correct this 1.7% increase would be on top of the increases Bush has already made. As the chart at the fact check web site shows the amount spent in real dollars in the last year of Bubbas presidency was 44 billlion, the amount to be spent in 2005 is 65 billion. Ed has stated numerous times that Bush has "CUT veterans benefits". Bull
Re the rest of your post. Do you know what a class 7 and 8 veteran is? It is those who a) are at at least 80% of their regions income level and don't have service related injuries. Clinton also had restrictions on what benefits these veterans were eligible for. RE lines and so on you can read every vets request for the last 60 years and find the same thing.
The request was simple, provide me with evidence that Bush cut veterans benefits. Since he has increased annual spending in real terms from 44 billion to 65 billion you won't be able to do so.
Re the rest of your post. Do you know what a class 7 and 8 veteran is? It is those who a) are at at least 80% of their regions income level and
don't have service related injuries. Clinton also had restrictions on what benefits these veterans were eligible for. RE lines and so on you can read every vets request for the last 60 years and find the same thing.The request was simple, provide me with evidence that Bush cut veterans benefits. Since he has increased annual spending in real terms from 44 billion to 65 billion you won't be able to do so.
From factcheck.org:
"The President's 2004 budget request for the Veterans Administration will effectively cut spending for its already-stretched health care system. Because of increased medical costs at an above-inflation rate of 4.7% and increased enrollment of 8%, the American Legion calculates that Bush's 2004 request comes $1.9 billion short of maintaining an inadequate status quo. - American Legion Magazine, May, 2003
You keep asking for evidence that Bush cut funding and stating that in strict dollar amounts he has increased VA spending. factcheck shows that he did in fact did cut spending per capita, which is what really matters. Because he requested only a 1.3% increase in spending and medical care inflation incresed 4.7% along with an increase of 8% in veterans requiring care, I think even you can see that this amounts to a cut in REAL spending. This issue amounts to more than just total dollars, as I pointed out on at least a couple of different posts. You just don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.
To sum up: Bush has increased total dollar spending but those increases do not keep pace with the demand for services and inflation. This results in a REAL overall decrease in spending. Get it?
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 8 2005, 11:40 PM)
Nice try "Ed Head", but using propaganda from a lib congressman isn't exactly research. But just for fun lets use his info. A 1.7 % increase over 2004 is NOT a cut. Even assuming his numbers are correct this 1.7% increase would be on top of the increases Bush has already made. As the chart at the fact check web site shows the amount spent in real dollars in the last year of Bubbas presidency was 44 billlion, the amount to be spent in 2005 is 65 billion. Ed has stated numerous times that Bush has "CUT veterans benefits". Bull
Re the rest of your post. Do you know what a class 7 and 8 veteran is? It is those who a) are at at least 80% of their regions income level and don't have service related injuries. Clinton also had restrictions on what benefits these veterans were eligible for. RE lines and so on you can read every vets request for the last 60 years and find the same thing.
The request was simple, provide me with evidence that Bush cut veterans benefits. Since he has increased annual spending in real terms from 44 billion to 65 billion you won't be able to do so.
Re the rest of your post. Do you know what a class 7 and 8 veteran is? It is those who a) are at at least 80% of their regions income level and
don't have service related injuries. Clinton also had restrictions on what benefits these veterans were eligible for. RE lines and so on you can read every vets request for the last 60 years and find the same thing.The request was simple, provide me with evidence that Bush cut veterans benefits. Since he has increased annual spending in real terms from 44 billion to 65 billion you won't be able to do so.
I don't really give a crap what terms are being used. The vets aren't getting the care they need.
QUOTE
On July 21, the HCVA learned, from a VA IG report, something that comes as no surprise to veterans. The report showed that waiting lists for healthcare at VA hospitals all over the country are getting longer and longer.
As of July 15, the number of new enrollees and established patients waiting more than 30 days for appointments in Cleveland was 1,638 -- in San Diego, 621 -- in Indianapolis, 287 -- and in Tampa, 2,650. And this is just a quick look at four VA facilities. These lists grow longer every day.
http://www.vawatchdog.org/milcom/cluelessincommittee.htm
As of July 15, the number of new enrollees and established patients waiting more than 30 days for appointments in Cleveland was 1,638 -- in San Diego, 621 -- in Indianapolis, 287 -- and in Tampa, 2,650. And this is just a quick look at four VA facilities. These lists grow longer every day.
http://www.vawatchdog.org/milcom/cluelessincommittee.htm
QUOTE
VA Secretary Nicholson said he has plenty of money in his budget. This while nurses at the Portland, Oregon VA hospital voluntarily pay for vending machine food for overnight patients because there is no money in the budget to provide that food.
Republican members of Congress vote against proper funding for VA healthcare. This while the Portland VA continues to cut beds because they don’t have the money to hire the staff to care for the veterans who should be in those beds.
In the past three weeks I have spent five days at the Portland VA hospital. It was a ghost town. There were empty parking spaces, the canteen was empty and the pharmacy waiting room was one-quarter full. In the six years I have been going to this facility I have never seen anything like this. Staff members tell me: No money means no doctors and nurses which means no treatment for veterans which equals an empty hospital. This is happening at VA facilities all over the country.
http://www.vawatchdog.org/milcom/vahealthcarecritical.htm
Republican members of Congress vote against proper funding for VA healthcare. This while the Portland VA continues to cut beds because they don’t have the money to hire the staff to care for the veterans who should be in those beds.
In the past three weeks I have spent five days at the Portland VA hospital. It was a ghost town. There were empty parking spaces, the canteen was empty and the pharmacy waiting room was one-quarter full. In the six years I have been going to this facility I have never seen anything like this. Staff members tell me: No money means no doctors and nurses which means no treatment for veterans which equals an empty hospital. This is happening at VA facilities all over the country.
http://www.vawatchdog.org/milcom/vahealthcarecritical.htm
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 9 2005, 12:55 AM)
Well, it is irrelevant to my question but since you asked I don't have any "club gitmo" gear and I wasn't offended by your "Buck Fush" I was merely pointing out that it was infantile. RE your other questions:
......
RE How many friends to I have that are minorities. I don't count them, but my wife is a native american, my college roommate was black, I grew up within 1 mile of an Indian Reservation in SD and nearly half my school was native American. About half of my friends from my youth are native american.
What are your other questions?
......
RE How many friends to I have that are minorities. I don't count them, but my wife is a native american, my college roommate was black, I grew up within 1 mile of an Indian Reservation in SD and nearly half my school was native American. About half of my friends from my youth are native american.
What are your other questions?
United We Stand.....you were just taken to the cleaners! TKO in the first round. Put a fork in you, you're done
QUOTE(aleman1948 @ Dec 9 2005, 02:01 AM)
From factcheck.org:
"The President's 2004 budget request for the Veterans Administration will effectively cut spending for its already-stretched health care system. Because of increased medical costs at an above-inflation rate of 4.7% and increased enrollment of 8%, the American Legion calculates that Bush's 2004 request comes $1.9 billion short of maintaining an inadequate status quo. - American Legion Magazine, May, 2003
You keep asking for evidence that Bush cut funding and stating that in strict dollar amounts he has increased VA spending. factcheck shows that he did in fact did cut spending per capita, which is what really matters. Because he requested only a 1.3% increase in spending and medical care inflation incresed 4.7% along with an increase of 8% in veterans requiring care, I think even you can see that this amounts to a cut in REAL spending. This issue amounts to more than just total dollars, as I pointed out on at least a couple of different posts. You just don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.
To sum up: Bush has increased total dollar spending but those increases do not keep pace with the demand for services and inflation. This results in a REAL overall decrease in spending. Get it?
."The President's 2004 budget request for the Veterans Administration will effectively cut spending for its already-stretched health care system. Because of increased medical costs at an above-inflation rate of 4.7% and increased enrollment of 8%, the American Legion calculates that Bush's 2004 request comes $1.9 billion short of maintaining an inadequate status quo. - American Legion Magazine, May, 2003
You keep asking for evidence that Bush cut funding and stating that in strict dollar amounts he has increased VA spending. factcheck shows that he did in fact did cut spending per capita, which is what really matters. Because he requested only a 1.3% increase in spending and medical care inflation incresed 4.7% along with an increase of 8% in veterans requiring care, I think even you can see that this amounts to a cut in REAL spending. This issue amounts to more than just total dollars, as I pointed out on at least a couple of different posts. You just don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.
To sum up: Bush has increased total dollar spending but those increases do not keep pace with the demand for services and inflation. This results in a REAL overall decrease in spending. Get it?
I "get it" just fine, I have a degree in economics with a minor in business. first off, I would like you to cite the fact check article where you got that quote. It wasn't from the one I posted. Second, you are using small increases from year to year WITHIN THE BUSH presidency to signify cuts (assuming the information you cite is accurate). The last year Bubba paid veterans benefits , the amount was 44 billion, the most recent year Bush paid it was 65 billion. Lets say you work for a guy and and make 44 grand a year, a new boss comes in and ups your salary to 62 grand a year, when the next year you get 65 grand you would then say you got a cut because the increase wasn't big enough? The article also clearly states that it is going up at a rate TWICE AS FAST as under Clinton. This would more than offset an 8% increase. If you want to argue that it was even more underfunded under Clinton that's fine but it doesn't mean that Bush CUT any benefits.
As for the demand for services the fact check article I provided clearly states that NO veteran was cut from previous eligibility and ALL veterans earning less than 25,000 per year AND any who had service related injuries were eligible for full benefits. As was the case BEFORE Bush, some veterans are means tested if they don't have service related injuries. Finally your quote is from American Legion Magazine, I love the American Legion but they are not primary sources for statistics. They either compile their own by anecdotal surveys or rely on other info. The information I cited at factcheck has all its original sources if you want to research them yourself
Again I ask for evidence of CUTS. Also, why doesn't anybody want to refute the abortion numbers? Ed lies about that at least as often as he does the Veterans benefits.
QUOTE(lenzy1000 @ Dec 9 2005, 02:02 AM)
I don't really give a crap what terms are being used. The vets aren't getting the care they need.
I don't really give a crap what terms are being used. The vets aren't getting the care they need.
A fine sentiment, one I might even agree with, but that doesn't mean there have been CUTS. You can read books, magazines, newspapers, going back decades and Vets have had to wait in line, not get services etc. That wasn't my question for this forum. I simply asked (I thought it was simple) for evidence that Veterans benefits were CUT under the Bush administration
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 9 2005, 12:55 AM)
4. Bill Bennet was making a point to a caller that is unwise to make an argument regarding abortion in the context of values to society. The caller had said that you could argue against abortion by saying it deprived society of millions of taxpayers. Bennet responded by saying it was not a good argument because people with despicable ideas (and he cited a book) could just as easily argue things like aborting blacks would reduce crime. He clearly identified it as a despicable argument and stated that he didn't agree with it. I urge you to listen to the entire call. Why do you think Ed refused to air the entire call?
RE How many friends to I have that are minorities. I don't count them, but my wife is a native american, my college roommate was black, I grew up within 1 mile of an Indian Reservation in SD and nearly half my school was native American. About half of my friends from my youth are native american.
Why would aborting blacks reduce crime? Was Bennet talking in overall rates, when it would of course be true, or in per capita rates, assuming that blacks are more prone to crime. Now I guess the statistics today would favor that, but it is not because of the race being that way, but because of larger cultural problems.
I was one on the Democrat side who did not really find the Bennet comment to be a big deal at first. Then I thought of a scenario where I'd have to imagine a similar thing being said that would effect me. So I imagine how I would react, if a black commentator said that one could argue that by aborting all white babies, there would be a reduction in corporate crime (Enron-type situations). Now that sort of statement would offend me. Not really on a surface level, but on the underlying assumption that some people have that there's some big white male patriarchy that allows all white men to become rich with minimal effort. It offends me because it's going to take me several years of work to even catch up with the median income in this country, when people with a similar education level as me, who went to my same college, came from well-connected families and will be able to instantly have their foot in the door of several large companies. So from one simple statement like that there is a way that I am interpreting it, which could lead to lots of assumptions being made that can lead to the statement being offensive.
Also, Tom Paine, I find your statement about where you grew up to be....well eerie sort of. Considering that I grew up a couple of miles away from a South Dakota reservation and a fairly sizable percentage of my high school was Native American...and yes I did have Native Americans among my friends. Maybe we're from the same area and don't even realize it....maybe we know of each other or each other's families. Just another day in the small world of the Ed Schultz discussion forums I guess.
Ed, from time to time, has gone on and on about Dubya being not very naturally curious.
A while back, he got this sound bite from Dubya about the IOU's in the SS "box" being treasury notes that Dubya called "worthless". Beat poor Dubya upside the head about "how could he call T-note worthless? Is he out of his mind?.... Anyone remember that?
It was explained to me by a friend that the notes that are in the SS trust fund are a kind of NON NEGOTIABLE T- note. meaning that they cannot be sold/ traded to ANYONE for ANYTHING - simply IOU's from the govt coming in the shape of a promise to pay at a later date with funds from somewhere else. In any fair minded head, "worthless" would be one word that one could use to describe their worth on the open market - which is what Dubya was talking about.
Now, I don't know what to make of Ed. On one hand (as much as Ed went on and on about Dubyas lack of curiosity), you'd think that would imply that Ed was somehow better in that regard.
From where I sit either he is not curious enough to ask "what do you suppose Dubya meant by that?" to some informed type or he knew the answer and figured that his listeners would stop at the sound bite and follow with a resounding "yeah, that Dubya sure is stupid".
Whaddya you guys make of that?
Respectfully from the right,
Clark
A while back, he got this sound bite from Dubya about the IOU's in the SS "box" being treasury notes that Dubya called "worthless". Beat poor Dubya upside the head about "how could he call T-note worthless? Is he out of his mind?.... Anyone remember that?
It was explained to me by a friend that the notes that are in the SS trust fund are a kind of NON NEGOTIABLE T- note. meaning that they cannot be sold/ traded to ANYONE for ANYTHING - simply IOU's from the govt coming in the shape of a promise to pay at a later date with funds from somewhere else. In any fair minded head, "worthless" would be one word that one could use to describe their worth on the open market - which is what Dubya was talking about.
Now, I don't know what to make of Ed. On one hand (as much as Ed went on and on about Dubyas lack of curiosity), you'd think that would imply that Ed was somehow better in that regard.
From where I sit either he is not curious enough to ask "what do you suppose Dubya meant by that?" to some informed type or he knew the answer and figured that his listeners would stop at the sound bite and follow with a resounding "yeah, that Dubya sure is stupid".
Whaddya you guys make of that?
Respectfully from the right,
Clark
QUOTE(Schultzee @ Dec 9 2005, 01:06 AM)
United We Stand.....you were just taken to the cleaners! TKO in the first round. Put a fork in you, you're done
Shultzee, I asked him some questions and he replied back with his answers....how does that make me a loser ??
QUOTE(unitedwestand @ Dec 9 2005, 09:54 AM)
Shultzee, I asked him some questions and he replied back with his answers....how does that make me a loser ??
It doesn't. I just meant that he responded quickly and consisely to your questions. And by the way, I really wouldn't call anybody (or most) losers here, losing an argument/debate maybe, but not "Losers".
QUOTE(lenzy1000 @ Dec 8 2005, 11:02 PM)
I don't really give a crap what terms are being used. The vets aren't getting the care they need.
Wouldnt be nice if the statement was "although The budget was increased from 44 billion to 65 billion it may not be enough due to addition demand for service"? That would be a true statement that doesnt try to fool people into believing what you would like. It is very true that no matter who has been President or in control of congress the Vets have always lacked the funds needed to be taken care of in a manner that they deserve.
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 9 2005, 12:55 AM)
Well, it is irrelevant to my question but since you asked I don't have any "club gitmo" gear and I wasn't offended by your "Buck Fush" I was merely pointing out that it was infantile. RE your other questions:
1. I feel the same way about minority rights as Dr. King, I believe a man should be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. This means that racial quotas are just as wrong as descrimination against certain races. In either case a person is given preference on the basis of race.
Agree with you on most of it...
2. Human rights and equality for all? The US marine corps has done more to advance human rights and human freedom and equality in this worldthan Desmond Tu Tu, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi combined and tripled.
Were US marine corps involved in fight against aparthied in South africa ?? Were US marin corps involved in freeing Indians from the British rule ?? Are you comparing US marine corps with just one women Mother Tereasa ??
Also i am not saying that they didn't do anything to advance human rights....
3. Blacks lynched in the past was terrible. Maybe you should pick up a history book, these lynchings were carried out by good democrats in the south with the knowing approval of elected democrat officials. All white, all democrat juries generally aquitted the culprits. It is a tremendous black mark on the democratic party.
...sure there were democrats....Robert Bird is the one that you bang all the time....He has apolozised for being part of KKK...Talk about whats happenning today....Racism do exist everywhere but I think its more prevalent in Southern RED states these days....
4. Bill Bennet was making a point to a caller that
is unwise to make an argument regarding abortion in the context of values to society. The caller had said that you could argue against abortion by saying it deprived society of millions of taxpayers. Bennet responded by saying it was not a good argument because people with despicable ideas (and he cited a book) could just as easily argue things like aborting blacks would reduce crime. He clearly identified it as a despicable argument and stated that he didn't agree with it. I urge you to listen to the entire call. Why do you think Ed refused to air the entire call?
Its like me saying that we should kill all the Jews as they are destroying America but that would be a horrible thing to do....
Just the idea of uttering those words from your mouth in the first place is sick......
Did Bennet apolozise for his comments ??? I guess not.....
5. Again the KKK and other white supremecist groups all have their roots in the democratic party. Former Grand Kleeg of the KKK Robert Byrd is STILL a US democrat Senator from West Virginia. The only known example of a KKK member running as a republican is David Duke, who also ran as a democrat. Both national parties denounced him and rightly so. All other KKK members including the one appointed to the Supreme Court (Hugo Black) was a democrat (appointed by a democrat)
Any examples of Republicans ??? Just by giving just the DEM names you can't say that the majority of republicans were not part of KKK or any other white supremacist movement....Again what are the stats today.
RE How many friends to I have that are minorities. I don't count them, but my wife is a native american, my college roommate was black, I grew up within 1 mile of an Indian Reservation in SD and nearly half my school was native American. About half of my friends from my youth are native american.
Glad to know that you are not a Racist....
What are your other questions?
Do you know anyone named Bin Laden ??? Do you know where we can find him ???
1. I feel the same way about minority rights as Dr. King, I believe a man should be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. This means that racial quotas are just as wrong as descrimination against certain races. In either case a person is given preference on the basis of race.
Agree with you on most of it...
2. Human rights and equality for all? The US marine corps has done more to advance human rights and human freedom and equality in this worldthan Desmond Tu Tu, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi combined and tripled.
Were US marine corps involved in fight against aparthied in South africa ?? Were US marin corps involved in freeing Indians from the British rule ?? Are you comparing US marine corps with just one women Mother Tereasa ??
Also i am not saying that they didn't do anything to advance human rights....
3. Blacks lynched in the past was terrible. Maybe you should pick up a history book, these lynchings were carried out by good democrats in the south with the knowing approval of elected democrat officials. All white, all democrat juries generally aquitted the culprits. It is a tremendous black mark on the democratic party.
...sure there were democrats....Robert Bird is the one that you bang all the time....He has apolozised for being part of KKK...Talk about whats happenning today....Racism do exist everywhere but I think its more prevalent in Southern RED states these days....
4. Bill Bennet was making a point to a caller that
is unwise to make an argument regarding abortion in the context of values to society. The caller had said that you could argue against abortion by saying it deprived society of millions of taxpayers. Bennet responded by saying it was not a good argument because people with despicable ideas (and he cited a book) could just as easily argue things like aborting blacks would reduce crime. He clearly identified it as a despicable argument and stated that he didn't agree with it. I urge you to listen to the entire call. Why do you think Ed refused to air the entire call?
Its like me saying that we should kill all the Jews as they are destroying America but that would be a horrible thing to do....
Just the idea of uttering those words from your mouth in the first place is sick......
Did Bennet apolozise for his comments ??? I guess not.....
5. Again the KKK and other white supremecist groups all have their roots in the democratic party. Former Grand Kleeg of the KKK Robert Byrd is STILL a US democrat Senator from West Virginia. The only known example of a KKK member running as a republican is David Duke, who also ran as a democrat. Both national parties denounced him and rightly so. All other KKK members including the one appointed to the Supreme Court (Hugo Black) was a democrat (appointed by a democrat)
Any examples of Republicans ??? Just by giving just the DEM names you can't say that the majority of republicans were not part of KKK or any other white supremacist movement....Again what are the stats today.
RE How many friends to I have that are minorities. I don't count them, but my wife is a native american, my college roommate was black, I grew up within 1 mile of an Indian Reservation in SD and nearly half my school was native American. About half of my friends from my youth are native american.
Glad to know that you are not a Racist....
What are your other questions?
Do you know anyone named Bin Laden ??? Do you know where we can find him ???
QUOTE(Schultzee @ Dec 9 2005, 09:58 AM)
It doesn't. I just meant that he responded quickly and consisely to your questions. And by the way, I really wouldn't call anybody (or most) losers here, losing an argument/debate maybe, but not "Losers".
and I thank him for that.....
Debate with a righty is hard to win as you guys are good at it because you scream from top of your lungs with no facts in your pocket....and its effective these days..
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 9 2005, 01:40 AM)
Nice try "Ed Head", but using propaganda from a lib congressman isn't exactly research.
and trusting your comments isn't exactly wise
QUOTE
But just for fun lets use his info. A 1.7 % increase over 2004 is NOT a cut. Even assuming his numbers are correct this 1.7% increase would be on top of the increases Bush has already made. As the chart at the fact check web site shows the amount spent in real dollars in the last year of Bubbas presidency was 44 billlion, the amount to be spent in 2005 is 65 billion. Ed has stated numerous times that Bush has "CUT veterans benefits". Bull
Bull is right. The amount is going up but so is the demand. Bush didn't plan on giving the vets enough to keep services at current levels which are already in distress. THAT'S a cut regardless of funding levels. If the prices for the services and the demands for it go up the budget has to also increase. In this case it was not an equal increase. I believe that bull is spewing from your direction.
QUOTE
Re the rest of your post. Do you know what a class 7 and 8 veteran is? It is those who a) are at at least 80% of their regions income level and don't have service related injuries. Clinton also had restrictions on what benefits these veterans were eligible for. RE lines and so on you can read every vets request for the last 60 years and find the same thing.
don't have service related injuries. Clinton also had restrictions on what benefits these veterans were eligible for. RE lines and so on you can read every vets request for the last 60 years and find the same thing.At least 15,000 new vets need services from injuries sustained in Iraq. and what the HELL does Clinton have to do with current funding levels. Are you guys so enamoured of him that you can't reply without invoking his name?
QUOTE
The request was simple, provide me with evidence that Bush cut veterans benefits. Since he has increased annual spending in real terms from 44 billion to 65 billion you won't be able to do so.
It's been provided for you. Take off your frickin glasses, or drop the lie, and admit it.
QUOTE(Tom Paine @ Dec 9 2005, 01:59 AM)
(sigh) I don't know what to do with you people. My original post HAD the facts including sources and a simple chart. Go to Factcheck.org/article144.html Even using your Bogus numbers you are admitting an INCREASE. My request was simple: Eddie has been claiming repeatedly for months that Bush CUT benefits. Whining about small increases with Bogus information does NOT show a CUT.
Dude
Reality check
funding is tied to benefits but the two are not synonymous.
Funding increased but not at a level to sustain services therefore services/benefits have been cut.
How hard is this for you?
QUOTE(O. Well @ Dec 8 2005, 01:14 PM)
If he didn't answer on his show, what makes you think he'd answer here? I stopped listening to him when he chose "cherry picked" and truncated sound bites that were taken totally out of context.
He isn't that good.
He isn't that good.
Then why are you sticking around his message board?
Too poor to afford Praiger's board, or Rush's board, or O'Reilly's board, or Hannity's board?
Troll.
QUOTE(Senihele @ Dec 9 2005, 12:15 PM)
Dude
Reality check
funding is tied to benefits but the two are not synonymous.
Funding increased but not at a level to sustain services therefore services/benefits have been cut.
How hard is this for you?
Reality check
funding is tied to benefits but the two are not synonymous.
Funding increased but not at a level to sustain services therefore services/benefits have been cut.
How hard is this for you?
You are the same as all the others. Your own personal musings are less than intersting. I provided a site with specific numbers and original source documentations. You provide neither. Since you apparently didn't read the information provided I have cut and pasted some of the pertinent info here. SERVICES/BENEFITS have NOT BEEN CUT, even with increased demand. See below.
"And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years*, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million)."
*Note: This information was compiled after Bush's first 3 years.
and
"In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.
In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.
By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.
One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit."
QUOTE(Senihele @ Dec 9 2005, 12:12 PM)
and what the HELL does Clinton have to do with current funding levels. Are you guys so enamoured of him that you can't reply without invoking his name?
It's been provided for you. Take off your frickin glasses, or drop the lie, and admit it.
It's been provided for you. Take off your frickin glasses, or drop the lie, and admit it.
Um, no, I'm not "enamoured of Clinton", but...I think he WAS the previous president, sooo.........try to stay with me here..........If you are alleging a CUT in spending I assume you are saying a cut from his spending level. How can I show there has been no cut without showing what the starting level was under the previous administration? RE my glasses I have had Lasik Surgery, but thanks for asking.
RE so called information "provided to me" it is generally individual musings by libs with no supporting documentation to back it up. I asked for supporting documentation WITH ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL! It is easy for a congressman to say "spending is cut 8%" or whatever, but based on what? I provided where the info came from as in original sources as well as "factcheck.org". Suppose I provided you with info from Bob Dornans office, or Michael Savage, would you consider that reliable? of course not
2. Human rights and equality for all? The US marine corps has done more to advance human rights and human freedom and equality in this worldthan Desmond Tu Tu, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi combined and tripled.
Were US marine corps involved in fight against aparthied in South africa ?? Were US marin corps involved in freeing Indians from the British rule ?? Are you comparing US marine corps with just one women Mother Tereasa ??
Also i am not saying that they didn't do anything to advance human rights....
Mr paine.....You didn't answer my question.
Were US marine corps involved in fight against aparthied in South africa ?? Were US marin corps involved in freeing Indians from the British rule ?? Are you comparing US marine corps with just one women Mother Tereasa ??
Also i am not saying that they didn't do anything to advance human rights....
Mr paine.....You didn't answer my question.
QUOTE(clark @ Dec 9 2005, 06:12 AM)
Ed, from time to time, has gone on and on about Dubya being not very naturally curious.
A while back, he got this sound bite from Dubya about the IOU's in the SS "box" being treasury notes that Dubya called "worthless". Beat poor Dubya upside the head about "how could he call T-note worthless? Is he out of his mind?.... Anyone remember that?
It was explained to me by a friend that the notes that are in the SS trust fund are a kind of NON NEGOTIABLE T- note. meaning that they cannot be sold/ traded to ANYONE for ANYTHING - simply IOU's from the govt coming in the shape of a promise to pay at a later date with funds from somewhere else. In any fair minded head, "worthless" would be one word that one could use to describe their worth on the open market - which is what Dubya was talking about.
Now, I don't know what to make of Ed. On one hand (as much as Ed went on and on about Dubyas lack of curiosity), you'd think that would imply that Ed was somehow better in that regard.
From where I sit either he is not curious enough to ask "what do you suppose Dubya meant by that?" to some informed type or he knew the answer and figured that his listeners would stop at the sound bite and follow with a resounding "yeah, that Dubya sure is stupid".
Whaddya you guys make of that?
Respectfully from the right,
Clark
A while back, he got this sound bite from Dubya about the IOU's in the SS "box" being treasury notes that Dubya called "worthless". Beat poor Dubya upside the head about "how could he call T-note worthless? Is he out of his mind?.... Anyone remember that?
It was explained to me by a friend that the notes that are in the SS trust fund are a kind of NON NEGOTIABLE T- note. meaning that they cannot be sold/ traded to ANYONE for ANYTHING - simply IOU's from the govt coming in the shape of a promise to pay at a later date with funds from somewhere else. In any fair minded head, "worthless" would be one word that one could use to describe their worth on the open market - which is what Dubya was talking about.
Now, I don't know what to make of Ed. On one hand (as much as Ed went on and on about Dubyas lack of curiosity), you'd think that would imply that Ed was somehow better in that regard.
From where I sit either he is not curious enough to ask "what do you suppose Dubya meant by that?" to some informed type or he knew the answer and figured that his listeners would stop at the sound bite and follow with a resounding "yeah, that Dubya sure is stupid".
Whaddya you guys make of that?
Respectfully from the right,
Clark
What really makes no sense is that Bush owns 8 million dollars worth of those "worthless" notes.
QUOTE(unitedwestand @ Dec 9 2005, 03:46 PM)
2. Human rights and equality for all? The US marine corps has done more to advance human rights and human freedom and equality in this worldthan Desmond Tu Tu, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi combined and tripled.
Were US marine corps involved in fight against aparthied in South africa ?? Were US marin corps involved in freeing Indians from the British rule ?? Are you comparing US marine corps with just one women Mother Tereasa ??
Also i am not saying that they didn't do anything to advance human rights....
Mr paine.....You didn't answer my question.
Were US marine corps involved in fight against aparthied in South africa ?? Were US marin corps involved in freeing Indians from the British rule ?? Are you comparing US marine corps with just one women Mother Tereasa ??
Also i am not saying that they didn't do anything to advance human rights....
Mr paine.....You didn't answer my question.
I would be happy to answer your question. Since my original post was in regard to Ed's BS RE Veteran's benefits & abortion stats. Since you went "off the board" to these other topics I infered certain things from your post. For example, if your response to my support of the Bush administrations increase in veterans benefits is to ask me my opinion about advancing human rights, I infer that you are suggesting that support of this Pres or military in general is somehow at odds with human rights.
To answer your specific question: I should have said the US military, I said the marines because I have a soft spot in my heart for them and they generally do most of the heavy lifting in battles. No the US military didn't fight appartheid, but they did save the European continent from facism, save half of Korea from communism & misery, and had a huge role in the collapse of most of the worlds communist regimes. The US military allows most of the free world to exist and protects the US homeland as a beacon to people from around the world who yearn to be free. For 50 years we pledged NY for Paris in a high stakes game of nuclear poker and under presidents democratic and republican alike (until Carter) tried to stop communisms advances everywhere in the world.
RE freeing the Indians from the British, Ghandi was able to succeed for the very reason that they were British. Ask any dissenter (if you can find any alive) in China, Cuba, North Korea, et al how their messages of peaceful resistance to the government worked out for them. They are all either dead or imprisoned.
RE Mother Theresa, I have nothing against her, she was a wonderful woman, but I am pointing out that spreading freedom and democracy does much more for human rights than all her good works and iconic status. Usually the "human rights" crowd lionizes these symbolic people but do not give the just credit to the most important tool in expanding and protecting human rights in the world, and that is and has been the US military
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.