18 Dec 08
"Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11% of the general adult population, according to a [2007] report".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm
To what extent do your views differ from or coincide with O' Reilly's? One in four seems a bit much.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGetting a little Clintonian here, but it depends on how we define owe. I would say we can and we should better fullfil out obligation to our vets, but I'm not sure I would say owe it to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EL_fntJnl4
"Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11% of the general adult population, according to a [2007] report".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm
To what extent do your views differ from or coincide with O' Reilly's? One in four seems a bit much.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkAgreed. "Owe" is a pretty strong word. On the otherhand, a lot of these homeless vets ended up in their condition (particularly the mental illness cases) as a result of active, "frontline" duty.
Getting a little Clintonian here, but it depends on how we define owe. I would say we can and we should better fullfil out obligation to our vets, but I'm not sure I would say owe it to them.
Now I think we should honor all of our vets, but I feel a bit more obligation to the ones that endured the hell of active combat. It seems like we should put more money into fixing/caring for these individuals.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis sounds like a typical American Right Wing solution to any problem. Use them and abuse them! The Republican party in America has always sucked up to the rich, and turned a blind eye to everyone else. What these short sighted people don't understand is these homeless vet's have many skills that could be useful if they had more opportunity to use them. But the Republican's motto is: We don't care...we don't have to! 😏
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EL_fntJnl4
"Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11% of the general adult population, according to a [2007] report".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm
To what extent do your views differ from or coincide with O' Reilly's? One in four seems a bit much.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI agree with O'reilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EL_fntJnl4
"Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11% of the general adult population, according to a [2007] report".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm
To what extent do your views differ from or coincide with O' Reilly's? One in four seems a bit much.
18 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoI thought the Colonel sounded a lot more reasonable actually, but then I suppose Bill is a pretty low standard.
I agree with O'reilly.
Edit: And the lady . . . she was way out to lunch. How does some one become the spokesperson for a dumb organization like that?
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by telerionO'Reilly was simply bloviating, which is his job.
I thought the Colonel sounded a lot more reasonable actually, but then I suppose Bill is a pretty low standard.
Edit: And the lady . . . she was way out to lunch. How does some one become the spokesperson for a dumb organization like that?
GRANNY.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by telerionSpot on. This is all about the pentagon/government trying to evade responsibility and financial liability. They have a long track record of denying the physical and mental after effects of combat duty. It's not about 'scroungers' and 'deadbeats' and 'owing veterans homes'. O'Reilly has never struck me as a maverick at all. He serves the establishment faithfully - sometimes consciously and sometimes instinctively - and skips from dot point to dot point with little creativity or decency. The issue here is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and related illnesses. Not homelessness, per se. O'Reilly makes a lot of money by laying down smokescreens like this. Decency - a mug's game in O'Reilly's country - does not sell well, it seems.
a lot of these homeless vets ended up in their condition (particularly the mental illness cases) as a result of active, "frontline" duty
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis forum seems to me to be crawling with people from O'Reilly's constituency.
O'Reilly is a sad reflection on US society. I just hope people watch his shows mainly for shock value, and not because they agree with his retarded ideology or hopelessly childish interrogation techniques.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by SeitseThat would be the preferable solution. The idiots in power, however, seem to think it's ok to toss boys out in front of bullets and then when they get hit you hang them out to dry.
Perhaps a solution would be to stop doing freakin' wars? Doh!
I'm a pacifist, through and through; however, if you're going to ask people to do your soldiering for you then you do owe them for their service. To not support those that served is repugnant and disgraceful and anyone that feels otherwise is too stupid to hang their head in shame.
19 Dec 08
1 edit
Agree with O'Reilly?!? Can we assume you are not a veteren. When you've been asked to put your life on line for your country, LIFE, nothing worth more, their is a mutual obligation for both country and person to each other. You can't pay a higher price for something then with your life. Believe higher obligation to those serving during combat. Honor them and help them every way possible. Better than bailing out financiers who cant handle finance. Setarcos