1 - 5
In response to:

Ebola Widow Gets Social Security

JBob Wrote: Nov 13, 2014 1:47 PM
Taking Sen Coburn's comments at face value, one would surmise that he would like to take away Social Security from Military Retirees. In that case, let's take away Social Security from all government retirees. As a military retiree, I paid into social security with each of my military paychecks. Why should I not then, receive social security as well as my military retirement. Military personnel were added to the social security program largely, I believe, because it added another avenue for revenue for the program and from the payout side, created a payee that by demographic statistics doesn't live as long as the average payee. And while we're at it, Sen Coburn, why shouldn't a soldier who is disabled in combat (and note that from perspective it should be someone with a disability from combat) be able to keep his disability pay as well as his retirement pay. Do we ask for a one for one exchange for anyone else who is disabled while working? Do we ask that of government employees? I agree we need to save money, Senator, but save it on the backs of some of those who have never given an ounce of devotion to the cause and not those who have looked the grim reaper in the face and lived to tell about it.
Snowden is no hero. There was far more divulged to the world than simply the scope of the information being collected or how it was being handled. Overall, the information being given to our enemies worldwide will eventually get Americans killed. When that happens, it is not only Snowden who will be a traitor, but people like Mike Shedlock who hold him up as a hero. And in hailing Snowden as a hero, Shedlock and others are simply creating more Snowdens who will find something to divulge whether a problem or not and in many cases, it will be those secrets that should not ever be divulged. Regardless of how Mike Shedlock feels, the journalist who helped him and continues to leak information is just as guilty of a crime punishable by death as Snowden himself. The New York Times deserved to be punished to publishing state secrets and so does Greewald and the Guardian.
See my response above from someone who actually had to lead said men and women in the military for just under 30 years. There were problems then and there are big problems now that women are going to be allowed into the combat arms. The problems I faced are miniscule compared to putting women into positions where they may have to lift a lot of weight and have to do it right now, quickly, in the heat of combat with now time to think about how I can do it easier. I am glad I'm not back there having to deal with it on the ground in those Infantry, Armor and Artillery outfits.
EssEffArr: Women have had different physical standards in the Army for a long time and it worked so long as women were not part of the Combat Arms meaning the Infantry, Armor and Artillery. Now the Army is looking at what are the proper standards for women who want to be part of the Combat Arms units. It's fine if a female armed with a taser and 9mm sidearm works as an MP, but can she pick up 90 lb. HP 155mm artillery rounds? Should she have to? There are a lot of questions about women in the combat arts that are not answered yet, but I'm sure a few law suits will all sort things out, while it gets a lot more of our service men and women killed in the process of being politically and gender correct.
In response to:

Obama in Kansas

JBob Wrote: Sep 22, 2013 10:14 AM
You think it's offensive to Missourians? It's more offensive to Kansans who don't want their state connected of Obama in any fashion. But you are right that it is totally disgusting that a website like Townhall can't figure out that LIBERTY, MISSOURI is actually in MISSOURI for God's sake. Do these headline writers read any of the story at all?
1 - 5