It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Back from Iraq: Out on the Street

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:24 AM
Billybob talks about backing up allegations here,

it's not actually 'baseless', however i don't feel compelled to try and prove..(anything to you)
So what your REALLY saying here is that it is ok to make any allegation and then not show something to back it up?
"trust me" is quite the defense youve cooked up there...

When a person is not willing to back up accusations theyve made, its either because they cant or because there is no defense as its a false premise and doing so admits you LIED to start with.

Billybob gets to his beef with me,

'bush bashing' was implied. my point is 'WHO CARES!'
Well as knowingly posting FALSE information on ATS is a violation of use, AND that making potentially harmful statements against someone publicly, in a mass media environment COULD legally be construed as SLANDER and/or LIBEL, you would think that the FIRST person that would care is the person making the accusation...for their own credibillity and protection.

This being said, making critical statements about government is fine as you say, except when those statements are LIES or meant to prop up some point thru LIES. If your gonna critique, USE FACTS NOT FANTASY!!!

Billybob thinks he's got me now...

the bigger problem i have with your OPINION is that you think everyone must share it.
First off, prove my facts wrong about the opening LIE that was spewed to slant this thread with. If you do, ill publically state a retraction. ill never come back to this thread deal?

Secondly, i DO NOT think everyone has to have my views or criitical thinking, if they did id have to work harder in the game of life to get ahead....Im GLAD there are people that remain in ignorance...its easier to succeed over those that are either too stupid or choose to stay that way.
You dont think politicians play the public like this?

Why do you think i work in television? SOOO many willing couch potato brains that addictivly crave whatever pablum the box spews for their feeble sheeple minds to consume....Mostly you dont even have to manipulate them, especially when their willing to cling to LIES to start with....

Billybob shoves foot into his mouth here,

bush bashing has nothing to do with starving, freezing homeless vets, which is what the thread is about.
OH REALLY? Explain this statement then

Bush's budget is a priority list, and veterans aren't on the list.
Now go back and re-read this entire thread and count the # of times that Bashing Bush has come into play here....damn man its printed for all to see, why cant you?

Ahh Soficrow,

you are pushing Bush propaganda - and trying to silence the opposition.
If you claim my information that counters your opening LIE is propaganda and/or false...PROVE IT.....How is asking and asking and asking for you to provide MORE info about your allegation trying to silence you? Id say that was rather engaguing to try and get more input from you not less.
What i AM trying to "silence" is the use of blantant LIES, not actual factual critiques.

Sofi calls the kettle black here,

you use bad sources
I see, so because you dont like the source, the information there MUST be false eh? What kind of Homer Simpson logic is that?


As you started with the source credibillity issue, lets look here at your source.
Religious SourceYour going to try and tell us that this is NOT a known biased/slanted source?

I wasnt going to question your source until now as nothing in the article you cite seemed to be erronious...of course nothing in your source blames Bush either....yet your first sentance does despite the reality of your source or mine....I have seen your source do some decent journalism before, but i KNOW they almost always have a paticular slant to their stuff....Are you saying your source is objective?
If I cited that source, id be being called a religious fanatic...a bible thumping bigot....yet i didnt question your source i questioned YOU, your credibillity and truthfulness is at stake here, not your source.

Diversion and ommision are "Standard strategy" for those people with weak arguments with no is this

neo-nazi Bush-Bullies
type of name indicates you cant do more than take a cheap shot because your argument has no defense.
And this name calling even after ive said now for the 3rd time,

Im NOT here to defend BUSH!!!!!
And im not here to swallow blatant LIES either.

Sofi, YOU have the power to end this....either ADMITT you printed a LIE here and lets move on,
prove that the info i posted countering your allegation is false...bring up something...ANYTHING from a legitimate source and id be HAPPY to be disproven here...either you cant or you wont, which is it?

If your only defense of your statements credibillity is to attack the person questioning it, then you have offered NOTHING but another unsubstantionated bag of hot air in your defense. You made the claim, its time to see if you can support it.

I think that you do a disservice to your point about the vet issue when you begin with an unsubstantionated LIE, and one with obvious political partizanship.

I think your smart enough to not have to resort to such cheap tactics as name calling, false accusations, misdirection, and blame game in order to discuss this issue...

When you do so, you embrace ignorance by ONLY looking at Bush's budget for this situation...what about the layered burocracy of the Veterans administration which existed long before Bush got to office that contributes directly to this problem? What other mitigating factors play into the causes of the vets problems?....what is the magnitude of this problem? What other agencies exist to assist vets? Where can someone go to donate to this cause?

By opening with a "get Bush" LIE you show no true depth in wanting to examine this issue, you only show a political bias meant to evoke other like minded anti-bushies" to rally around your false premise.
Just go back and count them on this thread...anything to Bash Bush with eh? Here they come crawling....

Dont the vets in question deserve MORE than a false bush bash on this issue? Dont let your anger at being caught spewing a LIE to support your political bias stop you from looking deeper into the truth about this problem....being OBJECTIVE means being inclusive not exclusive, even if you dont like the source or the person....doing less is only wearing blinders which limits your abillity to percieve the entire picture.

Denial of ignorance begins with USING THE TRUTH instead of starting with a LIE...

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 02:37 AM

Originally posted by CazMedia
Billybob thinks he's got me now...

you gave me an hour of your time for free, typing out your well honed response, LOL. that's gotta count for something.

vets are treated like dirt. good 'ol 'support the troops' bush turns his back on them once they're not in a foreign country with a gun in their hands. it's not a lie. he's selling america's financial future down the toilet, much like his record in bankrupting savings and loans companies. it's not a 'LIE'.
i did a simple 'web search', mister television, and found it was easy to find evidence of all my 'baseless accusations'. here, i'll repeat it more loudly, 'WEB SEARCH'. this isn't between you and me. it is between all of us. people must become their own number one trusted media news source, if'n we're going to go forward into the future, instead of backwards, like we are now.

here's ONE of the fine links i found with my simple 'web search'(which took 0.14 seconds, and yielded 9, 090 results). ....., i used the simple concepts. i let my fuzzy brain assemble, and typed them into a 'search engine'. the 'keywords' i used were ........'bush', 'bankruptcy', 'bailout'......

this is VERY well informed of the activities of the bloodlines of herr bush.

there. we're even.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by billybob]

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 02:45 AM
I used for my source the actual budget..

Let's hear what it has to say shall we? In brief, I'll come back with much, much more later, as I wade through the muck.

Total of 2.6 billion applied to the medical attention of Vets. The VA in addition, has the authority to collect inpatient and outpatient copayments, medication copayments, nursing home copayments, authority for certain income verification, authority to recover third party insurance payments for veterans from non service-connected conditions (that is critical), and authority to collect revenue from enhanced use leases.

Compensated work therapy
(Like many budget elements this is exactly the opposite of what its name implies) "..these funds are derived from the actual work performed by patients and members in VA health care facilities under contracts developed with private industry.."

"Veterans who have neither spouse nor child may have their monthly pensions reduced to $90." ($90!? How the hell do you live on 90 bucks a month?!) The difference is transfered into a federal account to be used for living expenses for vets.

They're treating 25,000 more people in acute care, but cutting the budget for same by 150 million dollars.

They raised physchiatric care by 240 million, apparently it was all in their head. They're not suffering from DU sickness, it's psychosomatic apparently.

150 million do develop health informatics in concert with the DoD?! What the hell? So this is where that acute care money went apparently. Health informatics means biological data transfer. 150 million to insure the DoD gets your blood and DNA information. Great...

New fees associated with VA care that I've found so far. There is a planned pharmacuetical co payment along with an annual membership fee! This isn't a golf course, this is necessary care for our soldiers.

I'll be back to reading that crap in a while. Too much other stuff going on right now. I've got like five projects on the back burner, and yet I still have to waste more and more time disagreeing with people who blatantly lie by calling others liars when the facts are clear.

Have you read the budget or just a republicans analysis of it?

[edit on 11-2-2005 by WyrdeOne]

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 03:50 AM
Can i say its about time?
I knew some prodding would shake loose the stagnations of Bush bashing and begin to look at more than emotive rhetoric. It would also keep the gnats of true Bashers at bay much like citronella candels at a picnic.

Ohh the pain my last responce caused me, if you want to know, i accidentaly hit BACK on my browser and ERASED (effectivly lost) my first responce which took about an hour to draft,
what you read was my second draft so you actually got about 2 hrs of my time.

Now i will consider your sources, however let me point out they are ONLY geared to provide negative information about the Bush target.
Hardly objective sources...Im Not yet (as i have to review and fact check etc) going to declare them "invalid", but more like "taken with a spoonful of salt".

Just be clear on the LIE im speaking of here...which concerns the budget proposal and a statement that veterans affairs werent "on the list".

YES the budget proposal is a giant cumbersome document isnt it...
and YES i did give it a look over BEFORE i proceeded to go of on this topic.

I will however try to devote some MORE time to it agreeing that EVERYONE has a life outside ATS and that this wont come quickly.

Again be clear about the LIE im speaking of and the info i provided...

no problems with your source.

here is part of the budget

For 2006, the budget requests total resources for the VA Medical Services appropriation of $22.4 billion, an increase
of $659 million ($25 million in appropriation and $635 million
in collections) over the 2005 level. This includes $19.8 billion
in appropriated budget authority and $2.6 billion to be collected
in the Medical Care Collections Fund.

The budget request also includes a comprehensive set of
legislative and regulatory proposals that will continue to concentrate
VA’s health care resources to meet the needs of our
highest priority core veterans—those with service-connected
conditions, those with lower incomes, and veterans with special
health care needs. These proposals are discussed in the
Medical Services legislative proposal section.

Medical Services.—Provides for a comprehensive, integrated
health care delivery system that addresses the needs of eligible
veterans and beneficiaries (except non-service-connected
veterans and veterans exceeding the income threshold) in VA
medical centers, outpatient clinic facilities, contract hospitals,
State homes, and outpatient programs on a fee basis. Hospital
and outpatient care is also provided by the private sector
for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under the
Civilian Health and Medical Programs for the Department
of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).

Hmm so an overall increase in funding here eh?
Also note where it says that DEPENDANTS of vets are sharing this budget $$ the budget isnt JUST for vets...This has been in place LONG before Bush...

Ill again do more looking at the nit pick details,
showing an overall increase to vet affairs is NOT being "off the budget list" now is it....
Why make such a statement if not to put a anti spin onto the first line of this thread? What was the purpose of saying this? Ive spoken ad nauseum as to why i think this was done.

At least were dealing with tangibles...
tho OPINIONS as to where the spending in this catagory are going will no doubt be debated back and forth in congress as well as here.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by CazMedia]

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:56 AM
Your post just illuminated another shocking number I was going to bring to light in my next post. Did you notice 635 million in collections versus only 25 million in appropriations? The veterans are paying their own increase, and the lions share of last years budget. How can this be reality?

I think anyone who reads this mammoth document will see how ludicrous it is. I would reccomend anyone who cares do so. Bush is going to funnel vets into private programs so private companies can make more money off them. I think the problem is nobody is pounding on neighborhood doors pointing out the numerous flaws in this plan, and even if they did, Washington is still going to toe the line and pass this legislative abortion.

I'm reviewing the document so I can change my investment strategy in the coming year.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:33 AM
Excellent research billybob and wydreone.

Caz - any president's budget proposal is a priority list - it establishes priorities and directions for the nation. That's the power of money - determined by how you spend it.

As far as vets go, specifically, wyrdeone got it:

"Did you notice 635 million in collections versus only 25 million in appropriations? The veterans are paying their own increase, and the lions share of last years budget. How can this be reality?

I think anyone who reads this mammoth document will see how ludicrous it is. ...Bush is going to funnel vets into private programs so private companies can make more money off them."


posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:33 PM
OK, let me bring my experiences as a wife of a retired Marine that falls on this budget.

We under the proposed budget will go from paying 113 dollars on our insurance under the government to 200, deductible, is now at 12 dollars for primary care to 25 dollars for referral, that we don't know yet how much will be increased, I think our initial was 50 dollars went we started but that will go up to 200 dollars or more now.

Then our prescriptions are 9 dollars in any pharmacy, and free if we get them at the military base, that will be increased also.

For somebody with disability or on constant medical care will amount to more they can afford in a month.

Then after my husband turns national retirement age the government insurances is over and turn into Medicaid or Medicare, and that will be cut too.

For people that depend solely on social security or Medicare for their needs because health or disability will be the most impact under the new reform.

People with health insurance from private firms will don't have to worry about this.

Only the poor and needy are the ones to depend on government sponsored programs.

So who is the ones to be affected? you guess, is not the well off or the rich either.

My father is a veteran and his prescriptions for to keep his prostate cancer dormant runs in the thousands in a year, if it wasn't for his private health insurance he would have die of cancer 6 years ago because the treatment in vet hospitals would have relegated him to terminal because he is in his seventies.

He has never trusted vet hospitals in his life.

In the other hand my mother medications are also in the hundreds a month she at one point was on 9 different prescriptions a day. Thank god she now only on 5.

No eve ry elderly in our nation can afford to get sick and have personal private insurances they mostly depend on the government.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by marg6043

No eve ry elderly in our nation can afford to get sick and have personal private insurances they mostly depend on the government.

Does anyone know the current stats on 'uninsured in America' ?

...last I heard it was about 46 million I think - and that was only people who didn't have private insurance, but were't poor enough to qualify for medicaid

What kind of numbers are we looking at here with all the programs cut?


posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 03:38 AM
Ok Ok, were up to this now...

"Did you notice 635 million in collections versus only 25 million in appropriations? The veterans are paying their own increase, and the lions share of last years budget. How can this be reality?

I think anyone who reads this mammoth document will see how ludicrous it is. ...Bush is going to funnel vets into private programs so private companies can make more money off them."

How long has the VA operated in this way...Since WHEN have vets had 100% coverage and bennifits...Since when hasnt the VA farmed out some of the work into private medicine?

This is NOTHING new here people, and while the bush proposals move some #'s around on paper, with the overall budget increased for vet affairs,
STILL it seems like some blame game is going around for an overall systemic problem.
Were getting closer to examining this tho in a non partizan manner.

NONE of the programs for vets or s.s. or medicare, foodstamps or welfare were EVER ment to be or become the SOLE means for someone to survive on...they are measures that are to help ease the burden, not replace other forms of "coverage".

Anyone that expouses the government funding entire coverage is looking to socialize the system.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:37 AM
Hey, Craz.....
As one of the 46 million americans who is too rich to get any type of assistance and yet, too poor to afford the healthcare system, I got to say....
I wish they would just drop the the balls they are juggling and let they whole thing collaspe....and, just what do you think would happen if they did pull out all the assistance that they are giving the healthcare industry, from the research grants all the way down to the medicare and medicaid? To the nice educational grants they offer the future nurses and doctors.....EVERYTHING!!!
It is unconstitutional to take money from any of those 46 million, if they truely cannot afford the healthcare.....which I can' give it to their neighbor, down the street, who is just about the same in everyrespect to them, except they might earn a dollar or two less an hour to help the with their illnesses.
But, back to the topic at hand......vets and healthcare. Ya know, I had a recruiter stopping by the house every now and then for close to two years straight....trying to recruit my sons.....did manage with one, the other lost out....INSUFFICIENT MEDICAL RECORDS!! But, gee, if I remember right, their health plan seemed to be a big thing while recruiting!!! Made it sound like they would be taking care of my son for the rest of his life......what you saying they lied???
Before they cut the vets health benefits, and before they cut the medicare and start screwing around with the social security. They can cut the medicaid for every abled bodied person who is capable of working!!! And, at least pay a little homage to the constituation that they are sworn to protect!
The vets deserve to have the promises that the recruiters give them kept!!

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:33 AM
I may not always agree with soficrow
but Caz I didn't see the same thing you did at all. I saw an interesting and sad article. I am not a Bush basher but I don't agree with everything he does either. Reporting on something you don't agree with is not Bush bashing - It is simply reporting. It is also one of the freedoms we have as Americans.


[edit on 14-2-2005 by justme1640]

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by CazMedia

NONE of the programs for vets or s.s. or medicare, foodstamps or welfare were EVER ment to be or become the SOLE means for someone to survive on...they are measures that are to help ease the burden, not replace other forms of "coverage".

You really need to read this Caz, shows how things work:

US Government Assists Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart is facing legal troubles on several fronts, from organized opposition. Critics say Wal-Mart subsidizes its business with Food Stamp, Medicaid and other government programs, and bypasses laws that protect employees. Announced today: details of the settlement agreement negotiated by the Bush administration for a Wal-Mart labor dispute. The company was charged with child labor law violations and allowing minors to use dangerous machinery, including chain saws, forklifts, and cardboard balers. Under the federally negotiated settlement, Wal-Mart will pay only $135,540 to settle charges of 24 child labor law violations in 3 states. The agreement also prevents future "wage and hour" Labor Department inspections without 15 days prior notice. On another front, Wal-Mart is facing a class action discrimination lawsuit by 1.6 million American women. If it passes, the so-called "Class Action Fairness Act" now before Congress will prevent this and future class action lawsuits from getting to court. In addition, Bush's budget proposals remove Wal-Mart's "hidden" government subsidies - with cut-backs to needed programs - leaving employees with below poverty level wages, no benefits and no back-up.

Also, check out the rest of this article:

* A cut in food stamps for the poor by $1.1 billion over the next decade, which means hunger.
* A 50 percent cut in the rental assistance program for people with disabilities.
* A freeze on funds for veterans' health care despite rising costs and the newly wounded.
* A $60 billion cut in Medicaid for the poor, which means one of two things – sick people without care or higher local taxes to offset Bush's cuts.
* A reduction of $80 million in heating subsidies for the poor, which means cold people. A lot of them are elderly. That means old, cold people.
* At the same time Bush is turning his back on the poor, he's asking Congress to make permanent his tax breaks for the rich.

Bush's Budget Reflects New Low in Moral Values

Anyone that expouses the government funding entire coverage is looking to socialize the system.

Right now, that's looking a whole lot better than losing everything we've got, including civil liberties, in the name of "corporate rights."


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in