Comments on: U.N. Tough Act to Follow

By: Burns

Burns — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 08:25:23 +0000

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2383229,00.html

By: kj

kj — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:17:39 +0000

sorry, larry, you're not even as intersting as slope and that is a low bar…

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:49:33 +0000

No one would argue it shouldn't be "fully funded," whatever that means. The only point I'm trying to make is the "head" of the VFW, whoever that is, is probably expected to work for veterans rights, veterans benefits, etc., so he'll always say the VA is underfunded. You can't raise money or even protect what you've got if you say you've got enough already.

In any case, I'd sure like to hear more about what our early Internet fathers had to say about grammar and e-mail. And are you familiar with the musical preferences of the first iPod users as well?

By: kj

kj — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:15:15 +0000

larry, clearly you know nothing about the internet. the protocol for all e-mail and comments is NOT to use majuscule. the early users of the internet decided this and i'm going along with. nice try at a snark, though. keep trying…

and please enlighten us, what WERE you saying about the underfunding the VA? it seemed like you were intimating that the VA shouldn't be fully funded.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:03:55 +0000

I never said we shouldn't fully fund the VA, kj. By the way, have you ever heard of a majuscule?

By: kj

kj — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:06:31 +0000

"lobbying for more money," you say? wow, way to support the troops, larry.

how typical of the right-wing. all talk, no money. just like they under-funded "no child left behind." all talk, no money. everything is a PR campaign…

hey, larry, ALL veterans deserve everything promised them, ok? and if the VA is underfunded, that we ALL should be ashamed of out government. jesus, i assumed we could all at least agree on taking care of our troops. but just goes to show how wrong a guy can be…

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:03:58 +0000

With all due respect, isn't the head of the VFW supposed to say the VA isn't fully funded, no matter how much funding the agency receives? Lobbying for more money is part of his job description.

By: kj

kj — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:36:03 +0000

my god, slope, it is amazing how far you will go to avoid the question. the question is WHY IS THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND ADMIN. NOT FULLY FUNDING THE VA? simple. the head of the VFW says it is so. do you disagree?

oh, and it is beyond hilarious when you right-wingers go into the "bush hating" speech! haha! jesus, you're STILL blaming clinton for EVERYTHING! hahaha! you guys hated him with the fury of a thousand white-hot suns! yet you wanna lecture us about bush-hating…man, you zombies will never cease to amaze me. and guess what? for all the right-wing lies about clinton (oh and there were many) his numbers NEVER got as low as bush's! it must make you right-winger's heads explode! hahaha!

on a serious note, if you really are a vet, i thank you for your service to this country.

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:59:55 +0000

It would seem to me that the anti-Bush sickness is affecting about

6 out of 10 Americans these days.

By: Slope

Slope — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:30:06 +0000

Suggest that you watch TV and listen to the people refer to democrats.

I too am a vetran of the military and the Clinton administration decimated the military including the VA. The Bush adminstration has increased both. It was there in my post but you go into denial when reading what is against your anti Bush sickness.