MakeItHappen
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2010
- Messages
- 155
This is a thread hijack,
Sorry , but thread was jacked at post#3
This is a thread hijack,
Sorry , but thread was jacked at post#3
"Calling on" is superficial. Responding is not. Again, how do you respond to my belief that the present actual rendition of DADT and the ideals and goals of the WP honor code are incompatable?But when you keep trotting out the same banners over and over and over again, as though they are new and original, you're going to be called on it.
Obviously you did not click on the link and bother to listen to her own words. Feel free to do so.You seem totally unwilling to believe, despite the fact that it has been spelled out to you, that she knew she was wrong for wearing the uniform and does nothing but discredit the US Military Academy in so doing, or that any of us object to her actions for the unprofessional smear tactic they were and not to her choice in sexual partners.
There is no fact in this statement. How many basic training flunk outs have Airborne wings? hmmmm none.I'd explain to you why the Army does not consider her a veteran of wartime service, but you find yourself to be the expert on all subject involving the U.S. Army so I'm sure you can figure that out yourself. As far as the Army is concerned, she never left training status. She is no different than a private who is honorably discharged from basic training.
now go backward and re-read all the posts made so far, very carefully. There is plenty of debate about her character and worthiness as a person.Is she a great kid? Sure! Was it hard for her to admit she was a homosexual? Sure! However, nobody is debating these issues.
We, as a nation, must support our veterans who have been willing to give their lives for our country. Can you think of a better way to ensure that no deserving individual is left behind than the present system? Would you not also agree that it is better to err on the side of perhaps including an undeserving than to omit a deserving?A guy who was in Vietnam for one day, forty years ago, and who now has type 2 diabetes (due to being overweight, smoking, and other age-related or genetic factors) can get service connection for the condition based on presumptive exposure to AO. This is even if the disorder didn't develop until decades after separation, and actual exposure to AO doesn't need to be verified.
I'm not suggesting that the regulations didn't serve a valuable purpose years ago, when AO-related cancers would likely have appeared (Adm. Zumwalt's son comes to mind). However, there are a few disabilities added to 38 CFR 3.309 (type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, and soon to include ischemic heart disease) that are at pandemic levels in the adult (over 60) male population in this country, and which have very little to do with herbicide exposure forty years ago. My point, is that the regulations are generous.
There is no fact in this statement. How many basic training flunk outs have Airborne wings? hmmmm none.
Heck, Scoutpilot thinks she premeditated this way back when she was 17 and a senior in high school.
Quote:
Is she a great kid? Sure! Was it hard for her to admit she was a homosexual? Sure! However, nobody is debating these issues.
now go backward and re-read all the posts made so far, very carefully. There is plenty of debate about her character and worthiness as a person.
Heck, Scoutpilot thinks she premeditated this way back when she was 17 and a senior in high school. If she pulled that off - I say that's pretty amazing to have survived two years at West Point and being in the top of her class if she never had any intention of accepting a commission. Imagine being a high school senior and saying to yourself - I am going to apply and attend West Point for two years just to make a point. haha.
Christcorps has repeatedly declared his lack of respect for her not staying in the closet. He thinks its okay if she is gay as long as he doesn't know about it and she is a bad person for not hiding it.
We, as a nation, must support our veterans who have been willing to give their lives for our country. Can you think of a better way to ensure that no deserving individual is left behind than the present system? Would you not also agree that it is better to err on the side of perhaps including an undeserving than to omit a deserving?
A bad example.
Next week the Senate is scheduled to vote on DADT. If the vote repeals the law and the military commences to stop discharging openly gay service members; we can start a pool on the odds that she will be back their next fall as a member of Class of 2013.
I can, yes. Make AO-related claims just like every other claim for direct service connection under 38 CFR 3.03.
LOL.I can, yes. Make AO-related claims just like every other claim for direct service connection under 38 CFR 3.03. The Vet would need to show that he has a current disability, that there was AO exposure in-service (or something else in-service causing the disease), and would need a medical nexus opinion stating that it is at least as likely as not that his specific condition is related to service (including AO exposure). This is how Vets (all Vets, not just VN Vets) get SC for most conditions in the VA system (e.g. a Vet claims service connection for hearing loss due to combat noise, he has to provide a nexus opinion linking his hearing loss to noise exposure in service). It weeds out the undeserving and gives benefits to the deserving. Under this system, there is no way a 65 year-old, 350 lb. smoker, with one day of service in RVN in 1973 (after spraying operations had ended), gets SC for type 2 diabetes that was diagnosed in 2010.
LOL.
Most navigable rivers in the Delta were sprayed heavily. Then the rainy season came. The AO moved into the rivers, into the silt. The entire delta flooded. And everything slowly dumped out to sea. It permeated the entire area. Soldiers drank out of the river, ate food from the river and rice paddies, bathed, and washed their clothes in the river. There are still areas in Vietnam today with elevated levels of dioxin, attrituable to AO. So how are you going to prove a location was dioxin free? And what does the end date of spraying in 1970 have to do with anything?
A bad example.
And it's a good example that has been adequately defended. Just because you disagree, doesn't make my opinion less worthwhile. If you please then, I'd appreciate it if you'd lose the condescension in your remarks.
This is a patriotic website where we love our country and hold the members of the Armed Forces in the highest esteem.
From the forum rules:
There is a time and place for everything. I don't think this forum is the right one for implying fraud, etc etc of our military veterans.
From the forum rules:
There is a time and place for everything. I don't think this forum is the right one for implying fraud, etc etc of our military veterans.