Central Scrutinizer Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Flash, "It didn't matter if you went to Harvard or Hooterville, Podunk or Purdue. Everything was paid for - including your text books." Which our government could and should do for all its citizens wanting higher education, not just veterans. If we weren't wasting our money overseas in military adventurism and bullshit wars to secure non existent WMDs we could do this as well, and many other things needed for our country and its citizens and young. And for chrissake Bin Liner wasn't even in Afghanistan! 555555 Why are we there again? For so long? Keep the Taliban out? The Afghanies deserve the Taliban if they will not get off their arses and fight them themselves. Edited July 12, 2011 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Maybe I'm biased because I had 3 brothers that served (3 different branches) and one a Vietnam Vet, but its atrocious how we treat vets, military families, the lot. I read once, I wish I could find it. I'll google it later after writing this that the return on investment from the GI Bill for WW2 vets paid for itself in multiples when you look at how much they contributed to society economically. Its a no brainer. What is really needed education wise is early education. K-6 espeically. HS is too late for most if your early education sucked. I've seen it first hand. I was damn lucky I had a family that saw that I liked to read, etc. and sent me where ever there was a decent school in Philly even if it meant getting up early hours to catch the train and bus. Anyway, with regards to the military. The military has woefully underserved vets who suffer from mental issues from combat. I know I'd go batty facing what they had to face on a daily basis at times. Its a G-damned shame, is what is. VA related things should be off the table in my opinion and if there any changes to its budget it should be ONLY increases. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be cuts in the defense budget. There is a lot of waste. Incredible amounts of waste. Those savings should go to the soldiers, their families and vets first before getting lost in the general budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Oh dear..lol http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/slavery-language-removed-group-marriage-pledge-candidates-160133885.html Slavery language removed from group’s marriage pledge for candidates An Iowa conservative Christian group last week essentially asked presidential contenders to say black families were better off during slavery. That's right. "THE FAMILY LEADER," a group run by failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, last week solicited GOP presidential candidates to sign a pledge attesting their support for traditional marriage, entitled "The Marriage Vow--A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family" as the first step in potentially earning their support for 2012. Social conservatives Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum quickly signed on. But after the public had a chance to examine the complete document, outrage ensued over multiple provisions, including one that reportedly stated the following: Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President. CNN reports that the language included a citation to a document entitled: "The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review" from 2005. On Saturday, Bachmann's campaign denounced the slavery claim, telling Politico that the congresswoman had only endorsed the "candidate vow," portion of the document, which did not include the offending language... Technically, she is right that they are more likely to have 2 parents but they were more likely to have 2 parents 100 years later as well in the '60s. Furthermore ALL kids were more likely to have 2 parents during slavery times as opposed to now. The divorce rate for all americans, black, white, etc. is over 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Higher education has become a business, like everything else. Just why does everyone need a bachelor's degree anyway? Nowadays a master's is required for many jobs. It was tough to get into the U of Cal in the 1960s. I read that only the top 10% to 15% of the high school grads could do so. Nowadays all of the state colleges (the second rung below the U of C) have been made into state universities. Everything is a university today, even if they only give an MA in one or two subjects. In the next generation I expect a PhD will be required, the way things are going. WTF? When I got my MA in 1971, it opened all sorts of doors. Now an MA gets you sort of a "so what" look. Plus you used to work your butt off for an MA - 1 1/2 to 2 years. I meet people now who got an MA in just 2 semesters. It is almost like a union card used to be - something you have to have to get hired. What the US needs these days is more people trained in the trades, not more people running around with useless sheepskins. I've talked to engineers who work with brand new engineering grads who don't know shit from Shinola. They have to teach them what they should have learned to get their degree - but didn't. The same with English teachers who can't write English worth a damn. Many more may be going to colleges and universities, but how much are they really learning? p.s. My father was a top level aerospace engineer. He had a BS degree, but he used to design systems and was a senior intrumentation project engineer on both Skylab and the Space Shuttle. How many BS grad can do that these days? How many brand new PhD's can either? And he got his degree thanks to the WWII GI Bill. Before that he had worked for Railway Express! Uncle Sam's investment paid off on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Totally agree, Steve. What the pols do to our vets is a goddamned disgrace. But then, they screw us all as well. Serving your country, going to battle especially and being killed or wounded fighting for your country should be justly compensated, for the vet, and/or his family. The country owes these folks big time for their service and sacrifice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Especially when they drafted many of them into going and paid them next to nothing for risking their lives. If you didn't want to go, they'd throw you into a federal prison. I didn't mind serving, but the coercion part always rubbed me the wrong one. It is one thing to conscript people to fight when the enemy is knocking on your door, but quite another when you sent them off to fight in foreign wars which posed virtually no risk to the homeland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 my dad got irradiated by the uk gov at christmas island, all for queen and country. sister had cancer at 19 then it wiped her out at 37....connected?....we'll never know. who knows if my genes will mutate and kill me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Looks like the Republicans are going to have a great big picnik especially if the country defaults on their loans. There is a possibly this one act might push the USA under - like way under. Having Obama defeated in disgrace even if it means losing the country is a worthy goal according to the Republicans. Figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I don't know all the details but I read one article that Obama and Biden had given the Republicans pretty much everything they asked for, 97% and Boehmer backed away from it because he didn't want a resolution. Supposedly that they would have less things to get Obama on during the election. Everything nowadays is party politics. Pelosi played hardball and used her power as well when she had it. Republicans doing the same. Its not about the country anmymore, its what I've always said it is, raw naked power. I do believe that even if Obama governed as the Republicans wanted it wouldn't be enough because he wasn't their man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Pres. O said "everyone has to give a little"...ohhh, he just gave his whitehouse staff a 15% pay increase...I guess that's what he calls "giving"! How about all the politicians give back some of their pay and benefits! that's a start!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now