Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Duckworth TakedownFollow

#27 Jul 02 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
She belittled minor injuries by contrasting them to her own. It was the "zinger" that folks were talking about earlier. What did you think she was doing with that?

Because the guy in question was passing off his prep school football injuries as service injuries. Given "in the service of his country" and the "cross he bears" for serving the US.

Do you think her reaction would be the same to someone who suffered an identical injury during actual military service? Not even "injured while running to save someone from an IED in Iraq" but even "hit by an army vehicle (do you guys still use jeeps?) in Texas while training in the National Guard"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jul 02 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
She belittled minor injuries by contrasting them to her own. It was the "zinger" that folks were talking about earlier. What did you think she was doing with that?

Because the guy in question was passing off his prep school football injuries as service injuries. Given "in the service of his country" and the "cross he bears" for serving the US.


Right. But I was responding to the "zinger" mentioned earlier. Which was specifically about contrasting the severity of the injuries themselves, not how they were obtained.

Quote:
Do you think her reaction would be the same to someone who suffered an identical injury during actual military service?


I don't know if she would. But her statement would be just as much of a "zinger" if that was the case. What made it a zinger was her contrasting her missing legs to someone with a sprained ankle. That's what I was talking about. I was very specific that I was not responding to the overall legitimacy of her argument, but merely the means by which she made it. Had she stuck to talking about how a given injury was sustained, and whether VA benefits should apply, it would be fine. But she made it about her own injuries compared to those claimed by someone else. I think that was completely unnecessary and was more about promoting herself (hey! don't forget I'm handicapped!) than about the issue at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Jul 02 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't know if she would.

Hilarious that you can "absolutely" tell us how the SC would rule on a case when it supports your argument but you give non-answers like this when you know the real answer doesn't help you at all.

You know if she would. You just don't want to say it. You claimed she was essentially saying "anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits". I'm not talking about some "zinger" or if it would be as zingy (seriously, FF spellcheck? "Zingy" is a word?) if she said it to someone else. I'm asking about your claim. Do you honestly think she was saying or even remotely believes that "anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits"?

Huh. Apparently "zingy" is a word although not really related to "zinger" as you'd commonly use it.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2013 7:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jul 02 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't know if she would.

Hilarious that you can "absolutely" tell us how the SC would rule on a case when it supports your argument but you give non-answers like this when you know the real answer doesn't help you at all.


They're two complete different things. In the first, I'm speculating that a court which just ruled that states and states alone have the right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage within that state would likely follow the same logic in a future case and rule that each state can decide whether to allow or disallow same sex marriages. Cause one follows from the other.

In the second, you're demanding that I must guess whether or not someone would make a distinction based on a set of criteria that isn't relevant to the point at hand. The point at hand is that she intentionally contrasted her loss of legs to someone's sprained ankle. Whether she would make the same comparison if the ankle had been sprained while serving in the military is something I can't say for sure. But if you want me to speculate I'd suggest that she absolutely would do so. You don't think that someone who lost two legs and partial use of an arm in combat might take issue with someone who got a sprained ankle while taking a shower, but since that person happened to be on active duty, it qualifies for the same VA benefits?

I think she would. I think most veterans would. It's the same as taking issue with someone who got treated for a splinter, but since it happened in a war zone, he got a purple heart for it. But that never happens, right?

Quote:
You know if she would. You just don't want to say it.


No. I honestly don't care. My point was about the impact of her statement about her legs. She was playing up her injuries in relation to those being claimed by someone else. And I think that's a cheap shot.

Quote:
You claimed she was essentially saying "anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits".


If we are to take her statement at face value, then yes, that's what she's saying. Her statement only has weight *if* the severity of the injuries are relevant to the issue at hand. But it's not. It's when/how/where the injury was sustained that matters. So why make the statement?

Her statement isn't intended to be taken at face value. It's intended to garner audience response. Hell. It's why this thread exists in the first place, right? That was my point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jul 02 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They're two complete different things.

Not really.
Quote:
No. I honestly don't care.

You do. Obviously, or else you wouldn't be defending yourself at length about it.
Quote:
If we are to take her statement at face value, then yes, that's what she's saying.

Again, only if you're an idiot. She never once says or even implies that that should be the criteria. You're making stuff up just because she has a "D" after her name, nothing more.

Funnily enough, "She's talking about her war injuries?!... how DARE she!" was straight from Rep. Walsh's failed playbook Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Jul 03 2013 at 6:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
She belittled minor injuries by contrasting them to her own. It was the "zinger" that folks were talking about earlier. What did you think she was doing with that?

Because the guy in question was passing off his prep school football injuries as service injuries. Given "in the service of his country" and the "cross he bears" for serving the US.
Admittedly, I was a bit confused by the prep school injury qualifying the guy for veteran benefits at all. Was the guy fraudulent and trying to pass the injury off as a war wound? It didn't sound like that was the case. I wasn't even clear if the guy was a vet.

Do non-combat or non-military wounds or disabilities qualify one for this program?


(crappy policy is crappy and this kind of crap is why)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Jul 03 2013 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Considering how lax the criteria for a Purple Heart is, I wouldn't be surprised.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Jul 03 2013 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:

If we are to take her statement at face value, then yes, that's what she's saying. Her statement only has weight *if* the severity of the injuries are relevant to the issue at hand. But it's not. It's when/how/where the injury was sustained that matters. So why make the statement?

The severity is criteria. It's the only criteria I could eke out of the video provided. The severity gets you a rating. Duckworths Arm got a 20% disability rating, this guys ankle a 30% disability rating. You have to have a sufficiently high rating to qualify for the program.

It seemed like the issue was that this guys rating was higher than it should be.

Why was it high?

Edit - this is apparently the gist of the discussion.

Why is it rated at all if it's not a war wound?

Edit - it seems the prep school was a military academy. The wound was sufficient for the guy to be discharged. However hi went on to play college football bringing to question the severity of the original wound.

So many questions, so few answers.

I guess I was bit put off by Duckworth's grand-standing her own wounds. It's irrelevant. The guy was a ****-wad, but either the guy misrepresented himself and/or his disability or he didn't.



Edited, Jul 3rd 2013 4:02pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#35 Jul 03 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Elinda wrote:
Duckworths Arm got a 20, this guys ankle a 30 (I'm unsure of the units).


I'm assuming it's the Scrubs' Pain Chart. (NSFW, Banana Hammocks).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#36 Jul 03 2013 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He received the injury in military prep school. Which is different (I imagine) from actually serving in the armed forces *Edit: Wiki says students at USMAPS are paid a small stipend and are active members, so I could be hazy about any distinction. I am not a military lawyer-guy. I assume the fact that it was a military prep school is what opened the gate for him claiming it as a service injury.

The hearing was about fraud in small business awards going to service-disabled veterans. Per lolwiki:
Quote:
A business hoping to be considered "Service-Disabled Veteran" must be at least 51% owned by an individual who can be considered by the government as a Service-Disabled Veteran. The terms "veteran" and "service-disabled veteran" are defined in 38 U.S.C 101(2) and (16). The following definitions are as stated in that code.

Veteran - The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.

Service Disabled - with respect to disability, that such disability was incurred or aggravated in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. An injury or disease incurred during military service will be deemed to have been incurred in the line of duty unless the disability was caused by the veteran’s own misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs, or was incurred while absent without permission or while confined by military or civilian authorities for serious crimes. Note that this definition does not require the disability to be causally connected to military service.

Such disability does not require a minimum rating to be considered. A veteran with a 0 to 100% disability rating is eligible to self-represent as a Service-Disabled Veteran for Federal contracting purposes.

Castillo was presenting his injury as service-related and deserving for consideration for federal contracts. His injury does not qualify per the law. I don't know the details of how he came to get his ranking and papers but, from his letters to the VA, he obviously presents his injuries as something they are not ("the cross I bear for the service to my nation", etc).

Quote:
I guess I was bit put off by Duckworth's grand-standing her own wounds

I think she was using them as a contrast for how ridiculous this guy's claims were. I don't doubt that she took the issue personally; besides her own wounds, she was the VA director in IL for a while and then Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs at the VA federal level.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2013 9:39am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Jul 03 2013 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
The more I find out about this guy, the more I'm reminded of the brutal PTSD inducing stories you hear from military cooks and communication techs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Jul 03 2013 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Considering how lax the criteria for a Purple Heart is, I wouldn't be surprised.

Major Burns had a Purple Heart for getting hit in the eye by a shell fragment.

Hawkeye: It was an egg shell!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 293 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)