Are these the people our presidents wants to have removed

It's, as I suggested, a refreshing commentary about our military. It was me...so blame me... for catching the significance of having a president who wants to trim military numbers but would increase the numbers of those on public assistance. Which of those two groups would you call on if you needed to be rescued? Which of those two groups offers a service of any value? That's not in the article either but I'm wanting to praise a group of people that our own president seems to want to snub. Call me what you want for saying that.

until you used it to bash the President?

Seems that you've only commented on what distracted you as did the other reply. Any comment on the article? See anything in it of significance with other bashings going on today? I see a little girl who was rescued by a military man and who continues to show concern for her well being. I guess children's lives matter...to some people.

Yes...as I stated

a refreshing commentary

in other recent threads...that the truth or facts of a story get less attention than how it's framed. Had I not introduced something that could push someone's hot button, I'd suspect fewer would comment. You came through nicely as evidence of such.

who serve honorably for nearly twenty years and are given pink slips on the battlefield........thanks to this administration. I would rather pay as a taxpayer for the retirement benefits afforded honorable service than have someone like Bergdahl getting the goodies he's STILL receiving, including backpay for an automatic upgrade in rank and pay while a traitor.

Did they have to make their own way back home or was transportation provided?

When I was laid off I had to make my own way home/or wherever it was that I wanted to go...as long as it was off the jobsite..

You think it's practical to have a 'war time force" in "peace time"? When the fighting is over you pack up your gear and head home.

It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

I realize America is rolling in dough and doesn't know where to spend it.

They don't know how to take the 'savings' of the wars ending and use it to pay down the debt they ballooned.........they'll just find somewhere else to spend it instead.

Guys were getting pink slips on the battlefield WHILE still fighting. They didn't get them after they were shipped home. Big difference to somebody who has put in nearly twenty years already.

Nice to know you got the Trump treatment every so often of being fired via a pink slip without warning.

battlefield?

Who are the they that ballooned the debt? I don't remember Obama starting any wars. In fact, he's trying to stop a new one that the Republicans are pushing for.

I'm sure the Republicans will take the savings to give the wealthy more tax breaks rather than helping the sick and the poor like Jesus advocated.

here's an interesting thread started by YOU (4 years ago) with YOUR words

so it might not be a real bad thing

Pink slips might not be a "real bad thing"?

I guess you can change your mind.

Just talked to Derek about this and he said that what will be 'weeded' out are the ones who are mainly staying in in order to have an income rather than be ambitious about wanting to move up in rank and make the military a career so it might not be a real bad thing

no battles are being fought much in the air or on 'blue water' so they aren't seen as very necessary at this time.

Things have gotten worse than they were, but as stated, those getting pink slips were STILL on the battlefield.........not those on ships that weren't actively fighting.

YES...your position has changed 180 degrees...

ABOUT FACE!!!! in military terms.

Quit whinging...in 4 years you'll feel entirely different about things.

I recall you converting a couple of family members to Republican...perhaps THEY could have an exorcism on you.

I'm perfectly happy being a conservative Republican, thank you. However, since liberals love 'evolution' as an excuse to flip-flop according to votes obtained, when do you suppose YOU will evolve and move more to the center instead of extreme far left?

People who either have never been in politics (Carly, Carson, Trump) or very conservatives like Cruz, Hill (who isn't running) and West....two are still in the Senate.

It's really difficult to respond to you when you give nonsensical statements..........clarify.

This is the first instance where I've seen a pundit refer to anyone actually still in the political field as an 'outsider'.......all that I've seen are the types I gave you as examples. Walker is no Cruz or Hill or West, for sure. He's done well in Wisconsin, and I said before that he's one to keep an eye on.

Bloomberg isn't a very good 'source' for what defines the Tea Party.....since that group has made it plain from the beginning that they don't care if you're Republican or Democrat....what they care about most is fiscal responsibility (which unfortunately most Dems can't comprehend) and liberty (which Dems prefer to take rather than give) among other things. It's not their fault that Republicans happen to agree with them so most times that's the direction of their backing and support. Even Libertarians agree with the Tea Party agendas more than Dems.

do you believe commit crimes compared to how many are 'saviors/heroes' both in military and civilian life? I thought we covered Ft. Hood pretty extensively here where our 'leader' wouldn't even acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack even while denying those who died or injured as slaughtered heroes the rights they will finally receive as 'war' recipients.

I don't recall you EVER posting a positive statement/article about the good things our military does every day.

has turned into a protection racket now. Give us what we want at all times or we will riot. "We are entitled, somebody owes us something, I want 40 acres and a mule even if I have no idea what to do with it,....."

at the end of a war. You act like this is unusual. Also a lot of military families are already on public assistance.

reduction in spending..........unfortunately, with liberal Dems, that never happens. Our military wouldn't BE on public assistance if this administration hadn't completely changed the qualifications that had been in place since 1996 when the Welfare Reform Act was put into place (thanks to Rep Congress and BC going back to the center). Contrary to whackjob Pelosi says, food stamps do NOT create jobs....taking them away DOES.

our military isn't the equivalent of seasonal employees. You don't hire, train and then fire every time business falls off. From what I've heard, WWII taught us something about military preparedness. I'm not an expert at how to determine what should be the minimum and peak staffing, however. During peace times, I know our military does get involved in other forms of disaster relief. This helps keep them trained as well as provide some value to our tax dollars.

Consider your local fire department personnel. Just what percentage of their time are they in front of a fire? I'll bet if we only staffed based on that data, we'd need only a fraction of the force we have now. Of course the ones remaining might need to travel much farther to get to you if your place went up in flames...and they'd need to finish putting out the fire they were working on before heading your way. Just think of all the money that could be put into welfare programs if we were just a bit more efficient with local emergency needs too.

Of course someone did opine that "they also serve who only stand and wait". But what did he know...he was blind and couldn't fight fires or wars.