On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they
just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food. The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face, wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is sent to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food. But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while he
lies in a hospital bed. Don't explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it, I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is to
listen to both.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food. The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face, wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is sent to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food. But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while he
lies in a hospital bed. Don't explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it, I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is to
listen to both.


I hear you. Just another example of the libs spouting lies, professing them
as the truth, and supporting their entire argument around those lies.

Hey Chuck....sound familiar?

JimH wrote:
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim,"
wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war
they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that
lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for
my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I
did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush
crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay
for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was
about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the
cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so
they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food.
The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face,
wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is
sent to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food.
But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in
the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while
he
lies in a hospital bed. Don't explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good
portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it,
I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said
that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for
getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to
listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to
Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves
make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth
that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha
suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is
to
listen to both.


I hear you. Just another example of the libs spouting lies,
professing them
as the truth, and supporting their entire argument around those lies.

Hey Chuck....sound familiar?

Huh? Did I say they lie? They tell half the truth. But it isn't just
libs that do it. The yellow dog neo-cons do it too.

Damn - I don't know hwy I can't stay out of these discussions! I
ignore most of them but sometimes manages to sucked in...

On 27 Jan 2005 17:35:56 -0800, "Curtis CCR"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food. The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face, wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is sent to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food. But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while he
lies in a hospital bed. Don't explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it, I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is to
listen to both.

Several good points there. Notice that Jim, seems to have dropped out
of the discussion after his hyper-whine.

Friggin' civilians spouting lies to other friggin' civilians who'll
believe anything that's anti-administration!


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

JohnH wrote:
On 27 Jan 2005 17:35:56 -0800, "Curtis CCR"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim,"
wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war
they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that
lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for
my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I
did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush
crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay
for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the
cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so
they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food.
The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face,
wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is sent
to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food.
But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in
the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while
he
lies in a a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=hospital%20bed"
onmouseover="window.status='hospital bed'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"hospital bed/a. Don't
explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good
portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it,
I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said
that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for
getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to
listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves
make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth
that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha
suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is
to
listen to both.

Several good points there. Notice that Jim, seems to have dropped out
of the discussion after his hyper-whine.

Friggin' civilians spouting lies to other friggin' civilians who'll
believe anything that's anti-administration!

Yeah, damned civilians. Who do they think they are? Jeez, you'd think
that they owned the corporations that keep this country going! You'd
also think they made up the bulk of the population! Who to hell do they
think they are? Hell, they CAN'T possibly know enough to be able to
take information given to them and ascertain whether or not it's
viable. Damn it, any washed up ex-soldier in Maryland could tell them
that they can't possibly have any brains if they don't goose step to
the Bush Reich.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JohnH wrote:
On 27 Jan 2005 17:35:56 -0800, "Curtis CCR"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim,"
wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war
they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that
lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for
my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I
did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush
crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay
for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the
cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so
they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food.
The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face,
wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is sent
to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food.
But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in
the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while
he
lies in a a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=hospital%20bed"
onmouseover="window.status='hospital bed'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"hospital bed/a. Don't
explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good
portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it,
I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said
that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for
getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to
listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves
make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth
that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha
suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is
to
listen to both.

Several good points there. Notice that Jim, seems to have dropped out
of the discussion after his hyper-whine.

Friggin' civilians spouting lies to other friggin' civilians who'll
believe anything that's anti-administration!

Yeah, damned civilians. Who do they think they are? Jeez, you'd think
that they owned the corporations that keep this country going! You'd
also think they made up the bulk of the population! Who to hell do they
think they are? Hell, they CAN'T possibly know enough to be able to
take information given to them and ascertain whether or not it's
viable. Damn it, any washed up ex-soldier in Maryland could tell them
that they can't possibly have any brains if they don't goose step to
the Bush Reich.


Did you complete your homework assignment Bassy?

JimH wrote:

Did you complete your homework assignment Bassy?

Um, I worked quite late into the night, if that's what you want to
know. You see, you nor no one else gives me an "assignment". I worked
late, have to go to a match this weekend in Nashville, so don't want to
be burdened with work issues.

On 28 Jan 2005 05:12:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 27 Jan 2005 17:35:56 -0800, "Curtis CCR"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim,"
wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war
they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that
lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid for
my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance. I
did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food, and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush
crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay
for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the
cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base, so
they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food.
The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face,
wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is sent
to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food.
But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image in
the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check while
he
lies in a a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=hospital%20bed"
onmouseover="window.status='hospital bed'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"hospital bed/a. Don't
explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good
portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on it,
I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said
that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for
getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to
listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves
make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the truth
that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha
suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story is
to
listen to both.

Several good points there. Notice that Jim, seems to have dropped out
of the discussion after his hyper-whine.

Friggin' civilians spouting lies to other friggin' civilians who'll
believe anything that's anti-administration!

Yeah, damned civilians. Who do they think they are? Jeez, you'd think
that they owned the corporations that keep this country going! You'd
also think they made up the bulk of the population! Who to hell do they
think they are? Hell, they CAN'T possibly know enough to be able to
take information given to them and ascertain whether or not it's
viable. Damn it, any washed up ex-soldier in Maryland could tell them
that they can't possibly have any brains if they don't goose step to
the Bush Reich.

You're learning.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

JohnH wrote:
On 28 Jan 2005 05:12:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 27 Jan 2005 17:35:56 -0800, "Curtis CCR"

wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:34 GMT, "Jim,"
wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...eed/print.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter
Reed
Army
Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the
war
they

just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that
lies
ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about
is
where
the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed
patients,
that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has
started
making
some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the
hospital.


I spent three months in Walter Reed. During that time, I paid
for
my
meals. At the same time I was drawing a Subsistence Allowance.
I
did
not expect that the Army should give me money to buy my food,
and
then
also give me the food I was supposed to buy.

But hey, liberal whining makes a good story for the anti-Bush
crowd.
When Clinton was in office, the rules were the same.

Now, I really wonder why the names were withheld.

I was not in a hospital, but I was on BAS, a.k.a. separate
rations,
when I was in the military. If I ate in a chow hall I had to pay
for
my meals while others ate free.

I was reveiving an extra allowance in my paycheck (IIRC it was
about
$150/mo) instead of getting free meals at the chow hall. And the
cost
of those meals I ate in a chow hall was still subsidized.

When I went to Gulf War #1 I lost my BAS. They fed me on base,
so
they
didn't need to pay me a hundred-something bucks a month for food.
The
left-wing hysterics would have called that a slap in the face,
wouldn't
they? Taking away the poor soldier's food allowance when he is
sent
to
war. But they either feed you, or pay you to get your own food.
But
not both.

And the way the article is written is typical. Create an image
in
the
reader's head of a paralyzed amputee getting his dinner check
while
he
lies in a a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=hospital%20bed"
onmouseover="window.status='a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=hospital%20bed"
onmouseover="window.status='hospital bed'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"hospital bed/a'; return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"hospital bed/a. Don't
explain that this doesn't apply to
inpatients until the reader is frothing at the mouth and blind
with
rage.

Then there's that $7.50 a day "combat pay," or whatever it's
called
now. I listened to Randi Rhodes (one of the Air America crowd)
yesterday try to pass that off as what soldier's get
paid...period.
She did not attempt to clarify that it was additional pay. She
was
implying that soldiers are only paid $7.50 a day. And a good
portion
of her audience will think just that. If she is ever called on
it,
I
can predict the way she will weasel out of it.... "I never said
that
was their total pay... I just said that is was we pay them for
getting
shot at... if the audience didn't understand that, they need to
listen
more carefully..."

Why would I listen to Randi Rhodes? Why would I listen to
Limbaugh?
Mostly for the entertainment value. But also because two halves
make a
hole. Since right wing radio only gives you the half of the
truth
that
suits them, and left wing radio only gives you the other half tha
suits
them, your only *chance* of of getting close to the whole story
is
to
listen to both.

Several good points there. Notice that Jim, seems to have dropped
out
of the discussion after his hyper-whine.

Friggin' civilians spouting lies to other friggin' civilians
who'll
believe anything that's anti-administration!

Yeah, damned civilians. Who do they think they are? Jeez, you'd
think
that they owned the corporations that keep this country going! You'd
also think they made up the bulk of the population! Who to hell do
they
think they are? Hell, they CAN'T possibly know enough to be able to
take information given to them and ascertain whether or not it's
viable. Damn it, any washed up ex-soldier in Maryland could tell
them
that they can't possibly have any brains if they don't goose step to
the Bush Reich.

You're learning.

John H

Yes, and please, let us remember, you ARE one. Are you REALLY so narrow
minded that you believe that the people that live in, elect officials
in, work in, provide 99.999% of the workforce in, pay the same in
taxes, run the educational systems, and on and on, don't know anything,
and some army grunt with an 8th grade education should tell THEM how do
think????