RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?.

RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 9:01:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight If you served in the navy then you are fully aware that there are actually more support personnel that are not on ships than sailors who are. Since I was at that time married to a member who was on sea duty, I was relegated to shore duty. Apparently you can't read the word "barracks" or that thought might have dawned on you. Of course, my dd214 could be lying about all of that and the VA could be part of a cover up since they treated me for my medical problems. I'm fully aware of how the USN worked which is what is making your claims hard to believe. Married couples did and continue to get simultaneous sea duty. When I was engaged to a female sailor we were told in no uncertain terms that there would be no guarantee of even being stationed in the same geographic area much less not getting simultaneous sea duty. Men are far more likely to get a sea rotation than a woman. No rating is exclusively shore based and duty stations were rotated every 2 years. In my time both in various schools and in a shore command I never had a private room. Private rooms in every BEQ I ever saw were reserved for CPO's.

Irishknight -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 9:15:54 PM)
More likely doesn't mean its a given. The fact stands that I was placed on shore duty. I was even turned down on 2 requests to terminate shore duty. The fact that you don't want to believe it doesn't make it less of a fact. I also have to wonder where you read me stating that I had a "private room." I had roommates but not 50 or 60 except in basic. I did state that we had 1 man shower stalls. Those were private except for the one time I walked in and saw two pairs of feet sticking out from under the same shower curtain. I think that one was temporarily a group shower. Often times married couples are given exactly the type of duty I described. One stays on shore while the other goes to sea. It is not guaranteed but it is done. I have seen it many times. Also, not everyone gets 2 year orders either. I have known several people who served out their entire enlistment at one command. The navy does what is good for the navy and puts you wjere they want you. And did I ever say that any rating was exclusively shore based? Afraid not. I said that there are more bodies serving on shore than at sea at any given time in the navy. If you are going to try so hard tomake me out to be a liar, try reading what I say, not what you want to think I said.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 9:35:21 PM)
You implied that you didn't have bunks in your BEQ. I said quite clearly I never saw a BEQ without them and certainly saw every ship I was on and every ship I ever heard about had three high bunks in the berthing compartments. You made a similiar claim about showers which is definitely not true on ships. I faintly remember hearing about BEQ's that didn't have shared toilets and showers but I never saw one. You're now claiming you never set foot on a ship during your enlistment which I guess is possible, don't know anyone not a reservist who can say that but maybe. You're also apparently claiming to have lived in a BEQ while your wife was stationed on a ship which is odd. Did you rent hotel rooms to have sex?

Irishknight -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 9:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight My rooms in the service were good rooms but not 5 star. The food was adequate if not gourmet. The showers were only group showers in basic training. Please reread the post. Don't read in what you want to see. Its in plain english, not anything else. Nowhere does it say I had a single room. It says "good rooms." I had 2 man and 4 man rooms for most of my time in. Hell, the rooms I rent at Super * or Motel 6 usually have 2 beds in them too. The showers, the ones where I was assigned, were only group in basic. Even in A school we had seperated showers with real shower curtains. And, I NEVER served on a ship for my entire enlistment. I set foot on lots of them for tech assists. I have never tried to hide that fact. It also doesn't make my time in any less valuable than yours. Since my wife and I split up before we could get an off base apartment, yes, we did have sex in motel rooms. We also did it in barracks rooms when we could sneak into them unnoticed and in the back seat of my car and by the lake ... Of course, SHE had sex in a lot more places but thats why we divorced.

Owner59 -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 9:54:39 PM)
Guys tend to exaggerate their military experience,the number of women they`ve had and the size of their dicks. It happens [:D].

Irishknight -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 9:58:21 PM)
I'll consider the source on that one.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 10:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight My rooms in the service were good rooms but not 5 star. The food was adequate if not gourmet. The showers were only group showers in basic training. Please reread the post. Nowhere does it say I had a single room. I had 2 man and 4 man rooms for most of my time in. The showers, the ones where I was assigned, were only group in basic. Even in A school we had seperated showers with real shower curtains. And, I NEVER served on a ship for my entire enlistment. I set foot on lots of them for tech assists. I have never tried to hide that fact. It also doesn't make my time in any less valuable than yours. Since my wife and I split up before we could get an off base apartment, yes, we did have sex in motel rooms. We also did it in barracks rooms when we could sneak into them unnoticed and in the back seat of my car and by the lake ... Of course, SHE had sex in a lot more places but thats why we divorced. Actually you were responding to this post: quote: All that good chow and those bunk rooms,talk about restful and relaxing. So in context it does appear you were denying having had bunks. I can't begin to figure out how you had a 4 man room without bunks but I guess its possible. As to your service being less valuable I never said that. I'm finding the details you've given inconsistent with my time in which either overlapped with yours or slightly preceeded it based on your claimed age.

Irishknight -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/21/2008 10:33:10 PM)
Gods! LOL Now I'm lying about my age. You are absolutely amazing. I was replying to the statement you have mentioned. THAT much is correct. YOU a-s-s-u-m-e-d that I said that I never lived in a bunk room. I stated that they were GOOD rooms. That means that they were not leaky, had room to stretch and that they were not overcrowded as was implied by the earlier post's sarcastic mention of "how restful." As a matter of fact, I have had 4 man rooms with and without bunks but they were always adequate rooms and were in no way uneasy to rest and relax in. At one point, I checked into a huge 8 man room with bunk beds and was made to dissassemble half of them the next day. That gave plenty of room to bring the remaining top bunks down to the floor and we were allowed to do so. For some insane reason, you feel it is your god given mission to try to turn everything I have said about my service into a lie. Remember one thing about inconsistencies with our service, they were served at different places by different people. I did my time where I was sent and doing the job I was asked to do. ONE of us has never alleged that the other was lying about his time. I'm sure that you service doesn't sound like the exact same experience had by others on this board so you must be lying about it too (sarcasm). Since you weren't kicked out for alcohol related problems because you tried to drink yourself to death during a divorce, maybe you were never in (more sarcasm). See how assanine it is to expect even the military to be exactly cookie cutter? I will take you at your word that you served because that is the way I am. As for lying about the size of my dick, that would be stupid. I pay my wife to lie about that for me.

kittinSol -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/22/2008 5:35:34 AM)
Life is cheap [>:] .

Aynne -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/22/2008 5:42:34 AM)
Come on now Owner, Walter Reed hospital, hell yes, that is where I want my next medical procedure..[8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight People forget that. I made more per year in free medical, dental, legal services, room and board, and numerous bonuses than many americans make in a year. THEN they gave me the money to go out and drink with ... I mean my paycheck. Yeah,no wonder the recruiter`s are busting at the seams with enlistees....[8\|] All that good chow and those bunk rooms,talk about restful and relaxing. Those showers are the icing on the cake,aren`t they ?[;)] Best part now is,the Itaq vets gotta fight to get treated at the VA. Ain`t army life grand?[:D]

Irishknight -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/22/2008 6:54:56 AM)
Everyone I've ever seen treated there came out of it quite well.

Aynne -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/22/2008 8:14:20 AM)
you are kidding right? http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/05/congress.reed/index.html quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight Everyone I've ever seen treated there came out of it quite well.

Alumbrado -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/22/2008 8:46:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Guys tend to exaggerate their military experience,the number of women they`ve had and the size of their dicks. It happens [:D]. There goes another irony meter... [sm=anger.gif]

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/22/2008 9:05:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight Everyone I've ever seen treated there came out of it quite well. That must be why every servicemen in the D.C. area does whatever it takes to get treated at Bethesda instead. Walter Reed hospital was a mess nearly twenty years ago when I was stationed in the D.C. area and from all reports has actually gotten worse.

Irishknight -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/23/2008 6:41:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne you are kidding right? http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/05/congress.reed/index.html quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight Everyone I've ever seen treated there came out of it quite well. In a word, "YES." I actually was kidding but I lost the thread and just took the time to locate it. And, Ken, you are absolutely right that people ARe and have been running to Bethesda. Walter Reed is a glorified free clinic. You need bandaids, you go there. You need ibuprofin, you go there. If you need medical help, you go somewhere else. Sorry for the late answer but I've been busy. I've been helping my wife paint her new store so that we can be the evil capitalist bastards we are meant to be. Not a lot of time so I've only been able to hit the boards early in the morning and late at night.

Owner59 -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/23/2008 7:17:58 AM)
It`s not just walter Reed. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-05-08-barracks_N.htm "Soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan can find themselves living in less-than-ideal conditions as base commanders work to keep up with repairs to sometimes-century-old buildings. Though habitable, many barracks in the nation require constant attention and can overwhelm limited maintenance budgets, according to military officials at the bases. "We've got some ugly barracks around the Army," said Maj. Gen. John A. Macdonald, deputy commanding general of the Army Installation Management Command. "Just (Wednesday), we found some more mold at Fort Rucker, so we moved the troops out." http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/28/barracks.bragg/ Dad's video of run-down barracks sparks military response ~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_fortbragg_youtube_042808/ ~~~~~~~~~~ Fact is,McCain has a long history of voting against any pro-veteran,pro-VA,pro-soldier legislation ever offered. And he`s the "military guy".That`s his one strength,supposedly. In a 2005 Senate budget battle, McCain voted to kill an amendment that would have "increased veterans health care by $2.8 billion for 2006. http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1023 It goes on.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/23/2008 7:35:20 AM)
The Webb GI Bill passed the senate yesterday by a 75-22 margin. Notable in the 22 opposed was John McCain. That's veto proof so GWB may not be able to prevent it from becoming law.

Archer -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/23/2008 8:06:20 AM)
BTW McCain was on board until what 6 weeks ago or so, I have to ask if it was about that same time that all these tack ons started getting added on as well. McCain has a reputation for voting against ideas he's for when they have riders (see campain promises about clean bills, and vetoing pork) or when they do not specify where the money for them is comming from. Somehow I can't take the man to task for voting against this bill on the basis of they again have spent money without telling us wher they intend to get the money from. It's not the idea itself that is so bad, although transferability makes sense to me as a reason to oppose, its that this is another pork laden bill at this point, and one that sends without the promised Nancy Pelosi phiscal restraint.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/23/2008 9:08:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer BTW McCain was on board until what 6 weeks ago or so, I have to ask if it was about that same time that all these tack ons started getting added on as well. McCain has a reputation for voting against ideas he's for when they have riders (see campain promises about clean bills, and vetoing pork) or when they do not specify where the money for them is comming from. Somehow I can't take the man to task for voting against this bill on the basis of they again have spent money without telling us wher they intend to get the money from. It's not the idea itself that is so bad, although transferability makes sense to me as a reason to oppose, its that this is another pork laden bill at this point, and one that sends without the promised Nancy Pelosi phiscal restraint. If you'll look back a couple of pages you'll see where I showed McCain's objection is claimed by him to be that the GI Bill is bad for troop retention.

Archer -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/23/2008 9:16:20 AM)
DomKen, basicly I'm not focusing on a single reason, McCain like most human beings often have a list of reasons for approving of or disapproving of a bill. The press focuses on one or two reasons and ignore the rest. Retention idea has some merit because this version front loads the benifits, thus giving less incentive to re enlist. It's a basic fact but can be argued how much the effect is etc. Transferability also a basic disagreement he cited Add to that pork and riders, and not citing where the money will come from and you have a list of 5 perfectly viable reasons to dislike the bill. Five reasons can make enough reason to vote against a bill even if you approve of the general idea.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02