RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,177358,00.html

Dude, don't you mean what kinda dope deals can be consumated with politicians and then claim sucess for "Vets"? Dude, anyone can see your views are slanted. If your buds in Congress support our best & bravest then why can't they propose and follow through on a bill with no "sweetners" code for tax-payer waste? We called that Fraud, waste and abuse in the military in my day! When you and IAVA can do something for our best & bravest with "NO" dope-deals then we will know that the leadership in Congress truly cares about our Vets. I don't see that happening anytime soon because they take responsibility for nothing!

Dude,

Name just #2 Bills since 1945 hat the Congress has passed concerning Veteran's Benefits, bills that were pushed by the VFW, American Legion, or the DAV that did NOT have "sweeteners" in them.

Name #1... if you can.

The truth is that Paul Rieckhoff has done more to advance the causes of Veterans, especially Afghan and Iraq War Veterans than any other person in any other Veteran's organization. He has YET to state an affiliation to ANY "party", (and in fact he is a Republican). His organization does NOT endorse any person for public office, and he never has.

Of course, surely you can prove he is a partisan hack from either party, can't you?

I have met the man personally, I have worked for the IAVA on several occasions, just recently when his organization sponsored a "Care Package" event and sent over 300 packages directly to troops in those war-torn areas, when the Republican Convention was held in St. Paul MN, BUT from a hotel in downtown Mpls.

He wouldn't even come to St. Paul so that people like you couldn't claim he was "slanted" towards anything but VETERANS issues. His political efforts are for Veterans, ALL Veterans.

K, Dude?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
Dude,
The truth is that Paul Rieckhoff has done more to advance the causes of Veterans, especially Afghan and Iraq War Veterans than any other person in any other Veteran's organization.
K, Dude?

While he may have done more to advance the causes of Afghan and Iraq veterans, I wouldn't necessarily state that he has done more than anyone to advance the causes of veterans.

For example, Harry Colmery, a former national commander of the American Legion is credited with drawing up the first draft of the GI Bill. That legislation had a substantial impact on every veteran -- during 1947, veterans accounted for 49 percent of college admissions; by the end of July, 1956, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program. From 1944 to 1952, VA backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II veterans. I wonder what the overall total number of veterans affected by that legislation would is now. This is but one example. I would think there are others.

Whatever happened to that site that showed everyone how our representatives voted on veterans issues? There was a link here on military.com for a while, and now I can't find it anymore.

I recall being astonished at how many of our loudest "troop supporting" representatives spent most of their time voting against the interests of those who serve (or served).

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:

The truth is that Paul Rieckhoff has done more to advance the causes of Veterans, especially Afghan and Iraq War Veterans than any other person in any other Veteran's organization. He has YET to state an affiliation to ANY "party", (and in fact he is a Republican). His organization does NOT endorse any person for public office, and he never has.

Got news for ya, Bill_Fold (as if you didn't already know)...Paul Rieckhoff is just another author and radio personality who makes his living at exploiting veteran's issues.

You claim he is a Republican. That really doesn't matter. What does matter are his views of America, his political agenda, the "friends" he hangs out with, his quotes, the television and radio shows he has appeared on that love his political stance and his anti-conservative & anti-Bush dribble.

And perhaps most importantly, his weekly (every Tuesday evening) appearance on the extremely Liberal "Rachel Maddow Show", on Air America Radio.

I won't dispute the good he has done for some of American veteran's. He has brought us a minimal exposure to returning vets. But all his journalistic efforts, documentaries on veterans, weekly radio shows, as well as founding IAVA, has made him a wealthy man.

On the backs of American Veterans.

He is full of BS, and a disgrace!

He is right that veterans issues weren't addressed- and we are no small group of people!According to DFAS, there are 2,230,780 retired members of the Air Force, Army,Marine Corps and Navy- this does not even count "veterans" who didn't retire but just did their turn!

why is this important? Military retirees are the backbone of society- socialogically speaking, we get more education than our peers. Did you know it was vets that used their GI Bill after WWII who started NASA and "invented" computers and the internet?

the way I see it, the gov't paid a lot to train us while we were in- like $20,000 min to get us through boot camp and initial schools... they should continue to watch out for us to make sure we continue to contribute to society. And our pay was taxed to pay our own pay- and same with our retiree pay in many states!

You may not realize that it is highly probable that the reason no real voting reforms happened in time for this election, which would help military folks overseas to have their ballots cast, is because as a bloc, military voters tend to be conservative. We look upon the candidate as our commander, not our paid servant- and we want someone who seems disciplined and respectful to us. So, did Congress do all they could to stonewall voting reforms so that "their" candidate wouldn't have to worry about the miltary vote?

quote:

Originally posted by mattkay4:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
Dude,
The truth is that Paul Rieckhoff has done more to advance the causes of Veterans, especially Afghan and Iraq War Veterans than any other person in any other Veteran's organization.
K, Dude?

While he may have done more to advance the causes of Afghan and Iraq veterans, I wouldn't necessarily state that he has done more than anyone to advance the causes of veterans.

For example, Harry Colmery, a former national commander of the American Legion is credited with drawing up the first draft of the GI Bill. That legislation had a substantial impact on every veteran -- during 1947, veterans accounted for 49 percent of college admissions; by the end of July, 1956, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program. From 1944 to 1952, VA backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II veterans. I wonder what the overall total number of veterans affected by that legislation would is now. This is but one example. I would think there are others.

Thats like comparing a prop job to a jet. The IAVA was not around in 1947. The bottom line is, they are both Vet groups and they both have some good ideas, what they should do is put their heads together and come with something that will support all vets.


Back to the subject, the next President will have to address this issue, especially in light of all that has happened over the last, almost eight years. One candidate had a chance to vote for vet issues and voted against them while the other one voted for them, and I couldn't understand why a vet would not vote for issues that would help other vets, it didn't make sense. Now vets have a chance to help put a President in office that will take vet issues to heart, and if you don't, I'll tell you like an old ret CSM told me, "if you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself."

quote:

Originally posted by wtpworrier:

quote:

Originally posted by mattkay4:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
Dude,
The truth is that Paul Rieckhoff has done more to advance the causes of Veterans, especially Afghan and Iraq War Veterans than any other person in any other Veteran's organization.
K, Dude?

While he may have done more to advance the causes of Afghan and Iraq veterans, I wouldn't necessarily state that he has done more than anyone to advance the causes of veterans.

For example, Harry Colmery, a former national commander of the American Legion is credited with drawing up the first draft of the GI Bill. That legislation had a substantial impact on every veteran -- during 1947, veterans accounted for 49 percent of college admissions; by the end of July, 1956, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program. From 1944 to 1952, VA backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II veterans. I wonder what the overall total number of veterans affected by that legislation would is now. This is but one example. I would think there are others.

Thats like comparing a prop job to a jet. The IAVA was not around in 1947. The bottom line is, they are both Vet groups and they both have some good ideas, what they should do is put their heads together and come with something that will support all vets.


Back to the subject, the next President will have to address this issue, especially in light of all that has happened over the last, almost eight years. One candidate had a chance to vote for vet issues and voted against them while the other one voted for them, and I couldn't understand why a vet would not vote for issues that would help other vets, it didn't make sense. Now vets have a chance to help put a President in office that will take vet issues to heart, and if you don't, I'll tell you like an old ret CSM told me, "if you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself."

Simply pointing out the erroneous statement by Bill_Fold that the IAVA founder has done more to advance the causes of veterans than anyone else.

As for the second paragraph, thanks, but I don't need political solicitation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mattkay4,

Your number one "New President" priority was to 1. Ensure Thorough, Professional, and Confidential Mental Health Screening. While I certainly can't argue with that, I believe that DOD's action to require Personality/assessment testing of all accessions prior to basic, or officer training would help eliminate much of our current problems. Young people not adapting to military service, no real interest in serving in the military, whether or not they can adapt to military discipline, etc. ASVAB does none of these things. It is simply a test to show a level understanding of common knowledge questions and basic (elementary) school subjects. Cut em before we Pay em.