| |
Main
Date: 25 Oct 2006 12:53:36
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: OT: Support the troops
|
Well, it seems the Republicans again are mouthing the 'support the
troops' mantra, but it is again just lip service.
The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:56:25
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: OT Support our troops-WW
|
WW wrote:
> this is golf - not politics
LOL! Always gives me a belly laugh when someone has to change the
subject to an expletive to continue an OT thread. Good on ya Mr. Dubya
Dubya.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:54:28
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1161830450.416600.49680@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Gordo" <golfzlf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > In article <1161800958.821174.54550@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tex wrote:
> > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a
> > > > > > cost
> > > > > > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> > > > > > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> > > > > Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
> > > > > screaming?
> > > > > Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
> > > >
> > > > I'm getting a raise this year. Trouble is....I have to work more to
> > > > earn it.
> > > >
> > > > Life is sooo unfair.
> > > >
> > > > -Greg
> > >
> > > Well, if you were in Iraq with many of our soldiers as a civilian
> > > contractor, you would be making tons more than they do.
> > >
> > > So, if you don't want to pay them properly, why not pay them what
> > > civilian contractors get paid when put in the 'rear with the gear' and
> > > lots more when their ass is really on the line?
> >
> > You been in the Military Lloyd?
>
> Over 20 years.
I had spent a good amount of my time in the military also. Pay was
never the issue.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 23:02:17
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
In article <1161834868.059904.241840@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Gordo" <golfzlf@gmail.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <1161830450.416600.49680@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Gordo" <golfzlf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > > In article <1161800958.821174.54550@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Tex wrote:
> > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a
> > > > > > > cost
> > > > > > > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the
> > > > > > > 'support
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing
> > > > > > > power.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> > > > > > Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > screaming?
> > > > > > Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm getting a raise this year. Trouble is....I have to work more to
> > > > > earn it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Life is sooo unfair.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Greg
> > > >
> > > > Well, if you were in Iraq with many of our soldiers as a civilian
> > > > contractor, you would be making tons more than they do.
> > > >
> > > > So, if you don't want to pay them properly, why not pay them what
> > > > civilian contractors get paid when put in the 'rear with the gear' and
> > > > lots more when their ass is really on the line?
> > >
> > > You been in the Military Lloyd?
> >
> > Over 20 years.
>
> I had spent a good amount of my time in the military also. Pay was
> never the issue.
You must've been deaf! ;-)
pay and food was always at the top of the bitch list.
And there were only 2 good duty stations, the one you just left and the
one you were going to... ;-0
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 19:40:50
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1161800958.821174.54550@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Tex wrote:
> > .
> > > >
> > > > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
> > > > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
> > > > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> > > > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
> > >
> > > Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> > > Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
> > > screaming?
> > > Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
> >
> > I'm getting a raise this year. Trouble is....I have to work more to
> > earn it.
> >
> > Life is sooo unfair.
> >
> > -Greg
>
> Well, if you were in Iraq with many of our soldiers as a civilian
> contractor, you would be making tons more than they do.
>
> So, if you don't want to pay them properly, why not pay them what
> civilian contractors get paid when put in the 'rear with the gear' and
> lots more when their ass is really on the line?
You been in the Military Lloyd?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:47:17
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
In article <1161830450.416600.49680@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Gordo" <golfzlf@gmail.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <1161800958.821174.54550@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Tex wrote:
> > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a
> > > > > cost
> > > > > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support
> > > > > the
> > > > > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> > > > > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
> > > >
> > > > Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> > > > Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
> > > > screaming?
> > > > Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
> > >
> > > I'm getting a raise this year. Trouble is....I have to work more to
> > > earn it.
> > >
> > > Life is sooo unfair.
> > >
> > > -Greg
> >
> > Well, if you were in Iraq with many of our soldiers as a civilian
> > contractor, you would be making tons more than they do.
> >
> > So, if you don't want to pay them properly, why not pay them what
> > civilian contractors get paid when put in the 'rear with the gear' and
> > lots more when their ass is really on the line?
>
> You been in the Military Lloyd?
Over 20 years.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 13:58:01
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Dene wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > I'm not forgetting anything. I was in for more than 20 years. We
> > didn't expect to get rich, but we expected to not lose money each year.
> > Any year that the pay raise is less than COLA means less real money.
>
> There are other options. Get promoted or get out into the private
> sector.
>
> > Now to those benefits. Yep, there are more for the military than
> > civilian jobs (with the exception of congress <G>), and part of that is
> > the relatively good retirement benefit, although that has been shuffled
> > around a bit. Medical care for active duty people, isn't as big a deal
> > as you might think. Other than injuries because of the job, and some
> > off-duty injuries, these young, fit people have few medical needs.
> >
> > Housing is one of those things that looks good on paper. Early in my
> > career, single housing was in barracks that were not rooms. Later we
> > got rooms, but shared with someone else.
> >
> > Then either in forward areas or on ships, 'housing' wouldn't even be a
> > joke term for what we experienced.
> >
> > Marrieds that lived on base usually lived in older, small houses,
> > duplexes and apartments with rules you wouldn't tolerate from any
> > landlord..
> >
> > And NO benefits go to those that leave the service short of retirement.
>
> GI loans are not available to you?
>
> > As to wages, they never have been on par with civilian pay at any level.
> > Even when you count in the dollar value of the benefits. But that was
> > acceptable for the security.
>
> Agreed....but officers make a fine wage. The result of ambition along
> with a college education.
>
> > > Sure....they aren't going to become rich. That status is usually
> > > reserved for those who are in business for themselves, and with it
> > > comes all the risk. Civilian contractors included.
> > >
> > Civilian contractor are at less risk than the active duty military over
> > there. Thought you might like to know that.
>
> The risk I was thinking of is financial. There is no guarantee that
> their labor will produce a suitable pay-off, hence the risk. Small
> businesses/independent contractors face this everyday.
>
> > In the case of the military, they are prepared to sacrifice all,
> > including laying down their lives. No business man has that level of
> > potential sacrifice.
>
> True....but as a businessman who was previously use to a set salary, I
> sacrificed plenty to succeed (weekends, all-nighters, budget
> constraints, dealing with fear, rejection, etc.). I didn't have those
> experiences while drawing a salary.
>
> Finally....I commend you for your military service, but I also think
> this point should be made. You can enlist and deliberately incur
> little risk to life and limb, simply by joining the Navy or Air Force.
> Those who choose the Army or Marines know the risks up front.
> Prosperity is not likely a major consideration to them.
I can't wait to see what happens when some Navy and AF vets see this.
>
> -Greg
>
> Ps. We have no argument about Congress. :>
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 13:02:32
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> I'm not forgetting anything. I was in for more than 20 years. We
> didn't expect to get rich, but we expected to not lose money each year.
> Any year that the pay raise is less than COLA means less real money.
There are other options. Get promoted or get out into the private
sector.
> Now to those benefits. Yep, there are more for the military than
> civilian jobs (with the exception of congress <G>), and part of that is
> the relatively good retirement benefit, although that has been shuffled
> around a bit. Medical care for active duty people, isn't as big a deal
> as you might think. Other than injuries because of the job, and some
> off-duty injuries, these young, fit people have few medical needs.
>
> Housing is one of those things that looks good on paper. Early in my
> career, single housing was in barracks that were not rooms. Later we
> got rooms, but shared with someone else.
>
> Then either in forward areas or on ships, 'housing' wouldn't even be a
> joke term for what we experienced.
>
> Marrieds that lived on base usually lived in older, small houses,
> duplexes and apartments with rules you wouldn't tolerate from any
> landlord..
>
> And NO benefits go to those that leave the service short of retirement.
GI loans are not available to you?
> As to wages, they never have been on par with civilian pay at any level.
> Even when you count in the dollar value of the benefits. But that was
> acceptable for the security.
Agreed....but officers make a fine wage. The result of ambition along
with a college education.
> > Sure....they aren't going to become rich. That status is usually
> > reserved for those who are in business for themselves, and with it
> > comes all the risk. Civilian contractors included.
> >
> Civilian contractor are at less risk than the active duty military over
> there. Thought you might like to know that.
The risk I was thinking of is financial. There is no guarantee that
their labor will produce a suitable pay-off, hence the risk. Small
businesses/independent contractors face this everyday.
> In the case of the military, they are prepared to sacrifice all,
> including laying down their lives. No business man has that level of
> potential sacrifice.
True....but as a businessman who was previously use to a set salary, I
sacrificed plenty to succeed (weekends, all-nighters, budget
constraints, dealing with fear, rejection, etc.). I didn't have those
experiences while drawing a salary.
Finally....I commend you for your military service, but I also think
this point should be made. You can enlist and deliberately incur
little risk to life and limb, simply by joining the Navy or Air Force.
Those who choose the Army or Marines know the risks up front.
Prosperity is not likely a major consideration to them.
-Greg
Ps. We have no argument about Congress. : >
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 15:18:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
In article <1161806552.392233.37990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > I'm not forgetting anything. I was in for more than 20 years. We
> > didn't expect to get rich, but we expected to not lose money each year.
> > Any year that the pay raise is less than COLA means less real money.
>
> There are other options. Get promoted or get out into the private
> sector.
>
Certainly that is one option. But those that make the military a career
are looking at other things, intangibles that are hard to put a price on.
But it doesn't change the unfairness in at least keeping the wage up to
the previous year's level in purchasing power.
> > Now to those benefits. Yep, there are more for the military than
> > civilian jobs (with the exception of congress <G>), and part of that is
> > the relatively good retirement benefit, although that has been shuffled
> > around a bit. Medical care for active duty people, isn't as big a deal
> > as you might think. Other than injuries because of the job, and some
> > off-duty injuries, these young, fit people have few medical needs.
> >
> > Housing is one of those things that looks good on paper. Early in my
> > career, single housing was in barracks that were not rooms. Later we
> > got rooms, but shared with someone else.
> >
> > Then either in forward areas or on ships, 'housing' wouldn't even be a
> > joke term for what we experienced.
> >
> > Marrieds that lived on base usually lived in older, small houses,
> > duplexes and apartments with rules you wouldn't tolerate from any
> > landlord..
> >
> > And NO benefits go to those that leave the service short of retirement.
>
> GI loans are not available to you?
>
Sure, but that isn't all that great a thing today. The loan rates are
in line with any other loan and the VA only guarantees the loan in
almost all cases. The GI loan was designed more to help the building
industry and banks than it was the military member.
Minor benefit these days.
> > As to wages, they never have been on par with civilian pay at any level.
> > Even when you count in the dollar value of the benefits. But that was
> > acceptable for the security.
>
> Agreed....but officers make a fine wage. The result of ambition along
> with a college education.
>
Considering the job, they don't. Most good officers go on after
retirement to very fine jobs as the training they've had and the
leadership abilities they possess are in demand in good positions
everywhere.
> > > Sure....they aren't going to become rich. That status is usually
> > > reserved for those who are in business for themselves, and with it
> > > comes all the risk. Civilian contractors included.
> > >
> > Civilian contractor are at less risk than the active duty military over
> > there. Thought you might like to know that.
>
> The risk I was thinking of is financial. There is no guarantee that
> their labor will produce a suitable pay-off, hence the risk. Small
> businesses/independent contractors face this everyday.
>
In Iraq? BS! The civilian contractors are making a ton of money by
even the most jaundiced look. The companies are taking little risk
financially, but the workers are taking a risk physically.
> > In the case of the military, they are prepared to sacrifice all,
> > including laying down their lives. No business man has that level of
> > potential sacrifice.
>
> True....but as a businessman who was previously use to a set salary, I
> sacrificed plenty to succeed (weekends, all-nighters, budget
> constraints, dealing with fear, rejection, etc.). I didn't have those
> experiences while drawing a salary.
>
I've been there and done that. Some while in the service, some after I
retired. One of the jobs I had in the Navy involved 'flex deck'
operations of 36 to 72 hours. No sleep, damn little food (or really the
time for food).
> Finally....I commend you for your military service, but I also think
> this point should be made. You can enlist and deliberately incur
> little risk to life and limb, simply by joining the Navy or Air Force.
> Those who choose the Army or Marines know the risks up front.
> Prosperity is not likely a major consideration to them.
>
> -Greg
>
> Ps. We have no argument about Congress. :>
While the Army and Marines are most at risk, Air Force personnel are at
the next level of risk. Some, but not all, Navy people are also at
risk. In fact, in Iraq, they are supplementing the Army with sailors in
direct combat roles. They didn't do that when I was in except for the
medical people that went with the Marines.
I don't need commendations for making the military a career. I am 3rd
generation Navy (my daughter is 4th gen), so it was an easy choice. I
enjoyed the travel and the things I got to see. And like most sailors,
I bitched about the food and pay as is the right and responsibility of
all good soldiers, airmen and sailors! ;-)
In my family, military service was considered something you did, whether
career or just a term. I've got relatives that either are or were in
all branches of service. Currently my son-in-law is a 30yr Marine.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 12:03:12
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> Uh, what the hell have you or they bought that didn't go up at least 3%?
> Certainly wasn't food, housing, energy or anything else I can think of.
> And the military people are just as susceptible to those increases in
> costs as you and I are.
>
> Gov't employees do get annual raises, usually tied to the COLA.
> Military is different and is done on specific legislation. Of course,
> while the congress gives themselves a COLA or more raise each year, and
> somehow the COLA that is used for them is higher than SS and Military
> Retirees COLA percentages.
>
> Then there is a fact that the military is well behind the civilian
> sector in pay even IF they get a full COLA raise.
>
> And whether or not you get one in your civilian job means diddly.
>
> And in spite of your wishes, I won't 'suck it'. I will bitch about what
> the congress does when it isn't right.
You're forgetting that most service personnel are young and single.
Their wages are likely the most they've received up to this point in
their lives. Also, housing, food, medical care are provided, along
with benefits when they leave the service. A good wage can be acquired
within the military, depending on the ambition and compentency of the
individual. Officers make a nice salary.
Sure....they aren't going to become rich. That status is usually
reserved for those who are in business for themselves, and with it
comes all the risk. Civilian contractors included.
Life is like that.
Job security (gov't work) vs. high risk/high reward (business)
Intimacy (marriage) vs. independence (single)
Short term pain (budgeting) equals long term gain (financial freedom)
Short term gain (credit) equals long term pain (no retirement)
One error of liberal thinking is that those who have chosen job
security are entitled to the riches of those who've risked/sacrificed
all. Tax the rich and distribute it to the poor. Trouble is...it's
the rich who employ people, not the poor. It's the rich who provide
the fishing pole, not just a fish. Taxing the rich takes incentive
from them to provide these opportunities. Why put out if somebody is
going to take it from you?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 14:19:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
In article <1161802992.523791.177280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > Uh, what the hell have you or they bought that didn't go up at least 3%?
> > Certainly wasn't food, housing, energy or anything else I can think of.
> > And the military people are just as susceptible to those increases in
> > costs as you and I are.
> >
> > Gov't employees do get annual raises, usually tied to the COLA.
> > Military is different and is done on specific legislation. Of course,
> > while the congress gives themselves a COLA or more raise each year, and
> > somehow the COLA that is used for them is higher than SS and Military
> > Retirees COLA percentages.
> >
> > Then there is a fact that the military is well behind the civilian
> > sector in pay even IF they get a full COLA raise.
> >
> > And whether or not you get one in your civilian job means diddly.
> >
> > And in spite of your wishes, I won't 'suck it'. I will bitch about what
> > the congress does when it isn't right.
>
> You're forgetting that most service personnel are young and single.
> Their wages are likely the most they've received up to this point in
> their lives. Also, housing, food, medical care are provided, along
> with benefits when they leave the service. A good wage can be acquired
> within the military, depending on the ambition and compentency of the
> individual. Officers make a nice salary.
>
I'm not forgetting anything. I was in for more than 20 years. We
didn't expect to get rich, but we expected to not lose money each year.
Any year that the pay raise is less than COLA means less real money.
Now to those benefits. Yep, there are more for the military than
civilian jobs (with the exception of congress <G >), and part of that is
the relatively good retirement benefit, although that has been shuffled
around a bit. Medical care for active duty people, isn't as big a deal
as you might think. Other than injuries because of the job, and some
off-duty injuries, these young, fit people have few medical needs.
Housing is one of those things that looks good on paper. Early in my
career, single housing was in barracks that were not rooms. Later we
got rooms, but shared with someone else.
Then either in forward areas or on ships, 'housing' wouldn't even be a
joke term for what we experienced.
Marrieds that lived on base usually lived in older, small houses,
duplexes and apartments with rules you wouldn't tolerate from any
landlord..
And NO benefits go to those that leave the service short of retirement.
As to wages, they never have been on par with civilian pay at any level.
Even when you count in the dollar value of the benefits. But that was
acceptable for the security.
> Sure....they aren't going to become rich. That status is usually
> reserved for those who are in business for themselves, and with it
> comes all the risk. Civilian contractors included.
>
Civilian contractor are at less risk than the active duty military over
there. Thought you might like to know that.
> Life is like that.
>
> Job security (gov't work) vs. high risk/high reward (business)
> Intimacy (marriage) vs. independence (single)
> Short term pain (budgeting) equals long term gain (financial freedom)
> Short term gain (credit) equals long term pain (no retirement)
>
> One error of liberal thinking is that those who have chosen job
> security are entitled to the riches of those who've risked/sacrificed
> all. Tax the rich and distribute it to the poor. Trouble is...it's
> the rich who employ people, not the poor. It's the rich who provide
> the fishing pole, not just a fish. Taxing the rich takes incentive
> from them to provide these opportunities. Why put out if somebody is
> going to take it from you?
>
> -Greg
In the case of the military, they are prepared to sacrifice all,
including laying down their lives. No business man has that level of
potential sacrifice.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 14:03:00
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-821942.12533625102006@individual.net...
> Well, it seems the Republicans again are mouthing the 'support the
> troops' mantra, but it is again just lip service.
>
> The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
> of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
> troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
And the dems again whine on and on.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 14:21:09
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <4q9qn5Fm9lh2U1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-821942.12533625102006@individual.net...
> > Well, it seems the Republicans again are mouthing the 'support the
> > troops' mantra, but it is again just lip service.
> >
> > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
> > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
> > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
>
> And the dems again whine on and on.
Whine? I'm not whining. I'm pointing out the continued hypocrisy of
the 'support the troops' bunch. Support stops when actual money is
involved I guess.
From your comment, I see you are in that sad group!
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 15:35:40
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-A8D0E8.14210925102006@individual.net...
> In article <4q9qn5Fm9lh2U1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-821942.12533625102006@individual.net...
>> > Well, it seems the Republicans again are mouthing the 'support the
>> > troops' mantra, but it is again just lip service.
>> >
>> > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
>> > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
>> > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
>> > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
>>
>> And the dems again whine on and on.
>
> Whine? I'm not whining. I'm pointing out the continued hypocrisy of
> the 'support the troops' bunch. Support stops when actual money is
> involved I guess.
>
> From your comment, I see you are in that sad group!
Hey, they're getting a raise unlike a lot of folks.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 19:13:05
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <4q9qn5Fm9lh2U1@individual.net >
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
Easy to understand why repugs call it whining. Truth, facts, and logic
are not in their vocabulary so any complaint involving those facets are
seen as something they can more readily relate to.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 14:22:44
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <8I7S5ISC39015.6340856481@twistycreek.com >,
tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header > wrote:
> In article <4q9qn5Fm9lh2U1@individual.net>
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Easy to understand why repugs call it whining. Truth, facts, and logic
> are not in their vocabulary so any complaint involving those facets are
> seen as something they can more readily relate to.
Ann Coulter has said that the left always says the right is
hypocritical, as if that is a bad point.
But daily, we get to see that the reason the left says that is that it
is true.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 15:36:29
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-506AE9.14224425102006@individual.net...
> In article <8I7S5ISC39015.6340856481@twistycreek.com>,
> tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
>> In article <4q9qn5Fm9lh2U1@individual.net>
>> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Easy to understand why repugs call it whining. Truth, facts, and logic
>> are not in their vocabulary so any complaint involving those facets are
>> seen as something they can more readily relate to.
>
> Ann Coulter has said that the left always says the right is
> hypocritical, as if that is a bad point.
>
> But daily, we get to see that the reason the left says that is that it
> is true.
You're whining about 1% get over it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 19:58:06
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <lloydparsons-506AE9.14224425102006@individual.net >
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
LOL. Quoting Ann Coulter gets you no points for credibility on anything
that comes thereafter. If you didn't realize that, please do so now so
that you will not make the same mistake next time.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 15:18:45
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <Y9L19DVJ39015.6653472222@twistycreek.com >,
tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header > wrote:
> In article <lloydparsons-506AE9.14224425102006@individual.net>
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> LOL. Quoting Ann Coulter gets you no points for credibility on anything
> that comes thereafter. If you didn't realize that, please do so now so
> that you will not make the same mistake next time.
I like watching her adam's apple bounce as she shrieks! ;-)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:32:24
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <lloydparsons-A6FC96.15184525102006@individual.net >
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
I can still remember during the Clinton bashing as she waddled from talk
show to talk show, how her eyes would light up anytime she mentioned
Bill's "penis." I hope she realizes that without liberals making strides
for women, the best she could have been hoping for WAS the opportunity to
give a blowjob just so she could have some work in the typing pool. She
had a short skirt on one evening while on a CNN show and I have to say
that those boney legs had more knobs on them than any green at Augusta.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 15:37:57
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-A6FC96.15184525102006@individual.net...
> In article <Y9L19DVJ39015.6653472222@twistycreek.com>,
> tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
>> In article <lloydparsons-506AE9.14224425102006@individual.net>
>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> LOL. Quoting Ann Coulter gets you no points for credibility on anything
>> that comes thereafter. If you didn't realize that, please do so now so
>> that you will not make the same mistake next time.
>
> I like watching her adam's apple bounce as she shrieks! ;-)
I see tiggertheidiot found a friend. I bet her balls are bigger than
Frankens too. :-)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:44:06
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <4qa096FlbrnuU1@individual.net >
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
LOL As if you'd know anything about balls or the hair you should have on
them.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 19:58:05
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Support the troops
|
In article <lloydparsons-506AE9.14224425102006@individual.net >
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
Oops. My bad Lloyd. Again, the Coulter creature threw me off but your
statement about hypocrisy of the right.......is right on. Again, my bad.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 11:29:18
From: Dene
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Tex wrote:
.
> >
> > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
> > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
> > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
>
> Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
> screaming?
> Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
I'm getting a raise this year. Trouble is....I have to work more to
earn it.
Life is sooo unfair.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 13:38:19
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
In article <1161800958.821174.54550@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> .
> > >
> > > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
> > > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
> > > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> > > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
> >
> > Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> > Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
> > screaming?
> > Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
>
> I'm getting a raise this year. Trouble is....I have to work more to
> earn it.
>
> Life is sooo unfair.
>
> -Greg
Well, if you were in Iraq with many of our soldiers as a civilian
contractor, you would be making tons more than they do.
So, if you don't want to pay them properly, why not pay them what
civilian contractors get paid when put in the 'rear with the gear' and
lots more when their ass is really on the line?
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:09:01
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
On Wed, 25 2006 13:38:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>Well, if you were in Iraq with many of our soldiers as a civilian
>contractor, you would be making tons more than they do.
Privatize the Army.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 19:13:12
From: KnighT
Subject: Re: Takeaway Swing thought
|
I never said there was anything wrong with the way you swing. I never
said that there was never a scratch, or champion golfer who uses the
same method you do to hit a golf ball.
Actually, I asked you two questions but you did not give an answer to
either of them.
larry wrote:
> On 25 2006 17:13:12 -0700, "KnighT" <bryanjunk777@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Larry,
> >
> >What are your thoughts on the takeaway, and getting to the top ?
> >
> >Have you ever tried a right forearm takeaway ?
>
> What all golfers (who become good players) learn is to quit
> experimenting when they finally have something that works.
>
> I have something that works. I can play scratch golf with this and I
> can do it without need to practice or beat balls on the range. I
> don't need to maintain timing from a poor swing with hand action.
>
> So, I am not gonna do anything but keep doing this and get better at
> short game.
>
> See ya out there. I will be in the Championship flight.
>
> Larry
>
>
> >larry wrote:
> >> On 25 2006 13:05:14 -0700, "KnighT" <bryanjunk777@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> We all know how the hands should work during the swing. But
> >> experienced golfers know that consciousness of the hands during the
> >> swing is deadly poison--the path to erratic inconsistency. Hence
> >> Gene Littler's strong admonition, "the hands have no role in the golf
> >> swing." They call him "Gene the Machine" because he hasn't missed a
> >> fairway since the 60s. He thinks that accuracy accrues from swinging
> >> with "dead hands." I know at least two other golf champions who
> >> agree with him. Likely they all do.
> >>
> >> We get our hands to do what is necessary during the golf swing
> >> indirectly, we make the big muscles work in the right sequence and the
> >> hands do their thing without conscious manipulation.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 11:20:53
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> Well, it seems the Republicans again are mouthing the 'support the
> troops' mantra, but it is again just lip service.
>
> The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
> of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
> troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
screaming?
Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
Oh wait, I was in a communist frame of mind there for a second...now
that I'm back in the real world, I see your post is nothing more than
pure political bullshit.
Suck it.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 13:36:47
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
In article <1161800453.222640.213220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > Well, it seems the Republicans again are mouthing the 'support the
> > troops' mantra, but it is again just lip service.
> >
> > The annual pay raise is projected to be 2.2%, about 1.1% shy of a cost
> > of living raise. So while they are protecting us, and the 'support the
> > troops' crowd yammers on, it seems it isn't even worth keeping this
> > year's pay at the same level as last year's pay in purchasing power.
>
> Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
> screaming?
> Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
>
> Oh wait, I was in a communist frame of mind there for a second...now
> that I'm back in the real world, I see your post is nothing more than
> pure political bullshit.
>
> Suck it.
>
> Tex
Uh, what the hell have you or they bought that didn't go up at least 3%?
Certainly wasn't food, housing, energy or anything else I can think of.
And the military people are just as susceptible to those increases in
costs as you and I are.
Gov't employees do get annual raises, usually tied to the COLA.
Military is different and is done on specific legislation. Of course,
while the congress gives themselves a COLA or more raise each year, and
somehow the COLA that is used for them is higher than SS and Military
Retirees COLA percentages.
Then there is a fact that the military is well behind the civilian
sector in pay even IF they get a full COLA raise.
And whether or not you get one in your civilian job means diddly.
And in spite of your wishes, I won't 'suck it'. I will bitch about what
the congress does when it isn't right.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 10:46:38
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
I'm not sure if I have time to worry about pay raises for hired thugs
today.
I'll try to fit it in tomorrow.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 06:56:27
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Tex wrote:
> Has the 3% inflation been seen for military families?
> Heck, I haven't had a raise in 2 years...maybe I should be yelling and
> screaming?
> Afterall, everyone has rights to a raise? right?
>
> Oh wait, I was in a communist frame of mind there for a second...now
> that I'm back in the real world, I see your post is nothing more than
> pure political bullshit.
>
> Suck it.
>
Boy, Tex, sometimes you hit the nail right on the head.
Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.
Now go back to listening to your hero, Rush.
I hear that on today's show he's gonna make fun of Muhammad Ali.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 06:24:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Wed, 25 2006 21:09:01 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 2006 13:38:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Well, if you were in Iraq with many of our soldiers as a civilian
> >>contractor, you would be making tons more than they do.
> >
> > Privatize the Army.
>
> What a great idea. Instead of inventing excuses like WMD or whatever,
> those responsible for the war just use branding like Nextel Cup, 3com
> Stadium, the Cialis Western Open, etc., etc.
>
> Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the KBR/Exxon/Royal
> Dutch Shell Iraq War!!
Bravo, Carbon.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:17:06
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
Gordo wrote:
>
> You been in the Military Lloyd?
Yeah, Lloyd, what the hell do you know about it? Other than serving 20
years with honors and having a daughter who won Sailor of the Year, I
mean.
Besides all that, whatcha got?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 21:32:29
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
In article <1161915426.679077.248550@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Gordo wrote:
> >
> > You been in the Military Lloyd?
>
> Yeah, Lloyd, what the hell do you know about it? Other than serving 20
> years with honors and having a daughter who won Sailor of the Year, I
> mean.
> Besides all that, whatcha got?
Sadly, nothing... ;-)
Except for a sense of disgust for what passes for political discourse
these days.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 19:05:06
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: OT: Support the troops
|
I usually avoid discussions like this as unto the plague. But, a couple
of comments:
Dene is happy in his willful ignorance of the hazards of duty in any
of the military services so let him be. It is worth noting, however,
that the widow of an AF TSGT is running in the Marine Corps Marathon
Sunday in memory of her late husband. The widow of his buddy is walking
it. And, of course, there are still hundreds of AF and Navy pilots
planted on hillsides in Vietnam and Cambodia. My nephew was commanding
officer of the detachment which scours the area for remains. During his
tour his group found 13 sets or remains and shipped them home with full
mlitary honors. Yes, the Navy and Air Force are nice safe jobs. Dene,
have you ever sat on top of a live missile tweaking the guidance system
to its most effectiveness? I have. Any mistake by anyone and I was
toast. Part of the job.
I usually find Annie's comments to be amusing. With his/her/its "hired
thug" comment the line was crossed. To calll ot professional military
thus is way, way, way wrong and stupid.
I live adjacent to a very large Army post, we currently have almost two
full combat divisions in Iraq plus support units, maybe 25,000 all told.
In my neighborhood alone we have lost two "hired thugs" in the past
three months; one to an IED and another to sniper fire. They were both
good people, parents, school supporters,active in our neighborhood
programs and much too young to die. They had, however, this foreign to
Annie concept of duty, honor, country and gave their lives for that
concept.
I am anything but a rabid supporter of the war in Iraq, I've thought it
a huge mistake from Day 1, but to denigrate those who serve honorably
and carry out the orders of their Commander In Chief is just about as
low as you can get.
|
|
