Faustian Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Spot on Flash. I agree with him too, on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Reminds me of a high school friend who had had polio when he was very small. There wasn't a damn thing wrong with him and he was a jogger. But when he took his pre-induction physical for classification, he brought along his records showing he'd had polio and walked like he was practically crippled. It worked - got him made 4-F. We had a guy get discharged out of BCT after less than 3 months in the Army. He claimed to be borderline epileptic. However, his mother was a nurse and allegedly told him how to act and that epilepsy was very hard to prove. The last time I saw him in uniform, I asked him point blank if he was faking. He looked away and refused to answer me. It is obviously not all that hard to fake your way out of serving, if that's what you really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Just read a interesting book on WW1 - by Ben Elton - The First Casualty. In it I learned that the Brit volunteers got less pay than conscripts - which pissed them off no end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 How strange. I knew an MD who had been commissioned a US as an Army doctor in 1938. Back then MDs were commissioned as 1st Lts. By 1944, when the military had expanded greatly and needed plenty of doctors, they were being commissioned as captains. My friend (Lodge bro) was still an O-2, and all of the new folks immediately outranked him as O-3s. You can imagine how much that pissed him off. I think he finally made captain in 1945, after 7 years service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Maybe you shouldn't trust Rush to know the facts! July 2, 2005 Washington, D.C. The military announced yesterday that it will begin providing vastly increased death benefits to the next-of-kin of military personnel killed in combat zones or combat-related training. Last month, President Bush signed into law the increase in the death benefit from $12,000 to $100,000. The increase was part of an $82 billion emergency appropriations bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which also included a provision increasing military life insurance payments from $250,000 to $400,000. The new benefits are available to the relatives of those killed since Oct. 7, 2001, the day the United States began overt combat operations in Afghanistan. (AP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Maybe you shouldn't trust Rush to know the facts! July 2, 2005 Washington, D.C. The military announced yesterday that it will begin providing vastly increased death benefits to the next-of-kin of military personnel killed in combat zones or combat-related training. Last month, President Bush signed into law the increase in the death benefit from $12,000 to $100,000. The increase was part of an $82 billion emergency appropriations bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which also included a provision increasing military life insurance payments from $250,000 to $400,000. The new benefits are available to the relatives of those killed since Oct. 7, 2001, the day the United States began overt combat operations in Afghanistan. (AP) Rush never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I think the compensation awards had 3 components. The first two being a flat amount for dependents and the third based on the economic loss. The third component is one reason the award were so high as many of the people killed were very highly paid, often in the hundreds of thousands a year. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 But why are they paid anything? and who is paying them? Don't get me wrong, it is a terrible loss, but it was well, for lack of a better term, an act or war or a terrorist attack. Who is real liable here? As has been pointed out, many people get injured in crimes and get ziltch for it, why these guys? Other than any insurance they may have had, I don't see where this sense of entitlement comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzz Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Some major players are saying that Rush is THE voice of Conservatives (or Republicans)....It just goes to show you how far the Republicans have fallen during the Bush era. From where I sit, Rush is a nut case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 But why are they paid anything? and who is paying them? Don't get me wrong, it is a terrible loss, but it was well, for lack of a better term, an act or war or a terrorist attack. Who is real liable here? As has been pointed out, many people get injured in crimes and get ziltch for it, why these guys? Other than any insurance they may have had, I don't see where this sense of entitlement comes from. Apparently, the logic is that if a lot of people get killed, it's the feds responsibility. If only 1 or 2 are, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.