View Full Version : What not to say to a woman who lost both her legs in service.
this guy is scum
http://www.upworthy.com/whats-the-worst-thing-you-could-say-to-a-congresswoman-who-lost-her-legs-in-battle-found-it
Yes she is a democrat but good on her for not letting this waste of O2 get away with his bullshit.
montanadave
08-18-13, 22:48
Assholes like Mr. Castillo that game the system for their own benefit at the expense of those who actually served and sacrificed deserve to be boiled in their own urine.
What a scumbag.
But sadly she is also a hypocrite.
Supports restricting the Second Amendment. (http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Tammy_Duckworth_Gun_Control.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Duckworth#Gun_control
Gun control
On October 10, 2006, Duckworth was endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The endorsement was announced in a joint appearance with the Fraternal Order of Police, who had also endorsed Duckworth. At the press conference in Lombard, Illinois, Duckworth referred to the recent school shootings and criticized her opponent's opposition to renewing a Federal ban on semi-automatic firearms, which expired in 2004. Duckworth claimed, "Basically, whatever the NRA wants, Peter Roskam will vote for it." Duckworth also supported the Brady Law, which requires background checks for gun purchases from federally licensed firearm dealers.[51][52][53]
theblackknight
08-19-13, 00:34
someone break his legs
HackerF15E
08-19-13, 10:33
Duckworth, also, is not deserving of respect as a political representative.
Not only has she taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution once but twice...and she still believes we peasants are not worthy of owning AR-15s.
Sorry, Tammy, but being a disabled combat vet does not give you carte blanche credibility to run roughshod over the document and principles you swore to protect.
I sustained a significant back injury in the Persian Gulf on MAGTF 2-88. I was able to get the injury rehabbed while still on deployment and separated from service soon after returning stateside.
I suffered chronic pain and several debilitating incidents per year for years afterward. In 2003, 15 years after the injury, I finally underwent back surgery and after healing, I'm better off now than I've been since 1988. I got lucky.
I'm not even sure how one would go about reaching back in time to claim a service related disability after that many years. Even though I recieved a Combat Action Ribbon and Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for that tour, my injury wasn't combat related and I have no desire to go back in time and claim that benefit. Stuff happens.
While I don't think I should necessarily grade my injury against any other, we have a LOT of young men and women who suffered horrendously. I'm very appreciative of their sacrifices and feel like mine is a drop in the bucket so to speak. That said, this guy filing a claim for service related benefits for a foot injury from playing football in college is a slap in the face.
What a magnificent douchebag. :nono:
Duckworth, also, is not deserving of respect as a political representative.
Not only has she taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution once but twice...and she still believes we peasants are not worthy of owning AR-15s.
Sorry, Tammy, but being a disabled combat vet does not give you carte blanche credibility to run roughshod over the document and principles you swore to protect.
+1
See "John McCain doesn't get a pass because he was a POW" rule.
I sustained a significant back injury in the Persian Gulf on MAGTF 2-88. I was able to get the injury rehabbed while still on deployment and separated from service soon after returning stateside.
I suffered chronic pain and several debilitating incidents per year for years afterward. In 2003, 15 years after the injury, I finally underwent back surgery and after healing, I'm better off now than I've been since 1988. I got lucky.
I'm not even sure how one would go about reaching back in time to claim a service related disability after that many years. Even though I recieved a Combat Action Ribbon and Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for that tour, my injury wasn't combat related and I have no desire to go back in time and claim that benefit. Stuff happens.
While I don't think I should necessarily grade my injury against any other, we have a LOT of young men and women who suffered horrendously. I'm very appreciative of their sacrifices and feel like mine is a drop in the bucket so to speak. That said, this guy filing a claim for service related benefits for a foot injury from playing football in college is a slap in the face.
What a magnificent douchebag. :nono:
I knew quite a few men, some still carrying around metal bits that couldn't be removed, who got a purple heart and nothing more. It is possible they got some additional token adjustment to their social security but I'm not sure. None of them would have had the nerve to claim a football injury.
The whole "while in defense of this great nation" stuff was appalling.
Assholes like Mr. Castillo that game the system for their own benefit at the expense of those who actually served and sacrificed deserve to be boiled in their own urine.
I wholeheartedly agree with this comment. If a Veteran has lousy insurance or no insurance at all, they should take advantage of the benefits that they EARNED. Mr. Castillo should go away quietly.
+1
See "John McCain doesn't get a pass because he was a POW" rule.
I like the "Daniel Inouye didn't get a pass even though he voluntarily served a country that unconstitutionally imprisoned his friends and family, actually killed many Nazis, lost an arm in combat, and received the Medal of Honor" rule better.
Come on guys. While I agree with you all on the Gun control aspect, the persons stance on one issue does not invalidate their stance on others.
montanadave
08-19-13, 14:28
Inouye, Duckworth, McCain . . . I may not agree with their political positions on this issue or another, but they damned sure earned the right to have a position. And if you don't like it, don't vote for 'em.
And they damn sure earned their right to appropriate medical care from the VA.
Mr. Castillo is a dishonorable liar and cheat, seeking unearned advantage over others while simultaneously depriving the deserving of their rightful benefits.
Come on guys. While I agree with you all on the Gun control aspect, the persons stance on one issue does not invalidate their stance on others.
As you can tell, gun owners are single issue voters.
As you can tell, gun owners are single issue voters.
Not all are. Although those of us on here tend to be. But this isn't about voting for the person. It is about the topic of the video.
And while I do indeed agree with you all on the ladies stance on gun control she has damn well earned some respect for her service and at least standing by what she believes.
I respect her for her service and will give statements from her regard service connected disability the extra attention that they deserve. I still would not vote for her if I lived in her district, and would actively support other persons who may run against her.
See? That was easy.
Inouye, Duckworth, McCain . . . I may not agree with their political positions on this issue or another, but they damned sure earned the right to have a position. And if you don't like it, don't vote for 'em.
And they damn sure earned their right to appropriate medical care from the VA.
Mr. Castillo is a dishonorable liar and cheat, seeking unearned advantage over others while simultaneously depriving the deserving of their rightful benefits.
EVERYONE, even Castillo has a "right to their position." That is something that need not be earned in any way. You have the right to be a communist, socialist, anarchist, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, monarchist, racist, separatist or pretty much any political / social ideology you wish to subscribe to.
You can believe in everything from Big Purple Kid to Zeus to Flying Spaghetti Monster.
What you don't have the right to do, what NOBODY has the right to do is violate or otherwise undermine the Constitution of the United States and the rights which are "off limits" to government. And regardless of anyone's contribution to the country, no matter how significant, you cannot EARN the right to violate those "off limits" rights.
The fact that anyone who has personally taken the oath, or fought to defend this county would even contemplate such a thing is as reprehensible as the action of Castillo if not more.
Castillo tried to take advantage of a government program for personal gain or portrayed himself as some kind of "injured in service to my country" individual. That is absolutely reprehensible and a fitting sentence would be a year cleaning bed pans at Walther Reed for one year while apologizing to each and every combat wounded veteran.
The McCains, Duckworths, Bush 41, etc. that have honorably served and then gone on to violate the very oath they swore are much, much worse as they don't simply steal money from a system but rights from each and every American now and for every future generation.
As you can tell, gun owners are bright line voters.
Fixed it for you. It's possible to respect the military service and sacrifice, while simultaneously finding the political career and personal demeanor to be reprehensible. It's not an all or nothing subject.
As you can tell, gun owners are single issue voters.
I'm not.
If she was pro second amendment but wanted to limit any of my other civil rights I'd have the same view of her.
This is a divide and conquer game played by our two party government. Party A represents some popular issues and Party B represents some other popular issues.
This forces voters to sacrifice "some" of their beliefs to defend "some" of their other beliefs. Party A and B take turns being in power while they systematically curtail the freedoms voters try and secure with their vote for Party A or Party B while at the same time promoting the agendas of Party A and Party B that most voters don't actually support but realize it's a package deal.
This is the fix we were in during the last two election cycles when we realized that the "pro gun" party was a package deal that included amnesty for criminals.
Just curious, how often do you vote for an anti-gun person who is running against a pro-gun person?
Just curious, how often do you vote for an anti-gun person who is running against a pro-gun person?
That is a bit of a misleading question. In general our views tend to be clumped together. So a Pro Gun candidate is going to share more than just that one stance. An Anti Gun candidate will differ on the majority of stances.
There are some exceptions to that such as myself where I tend to be very conservative in many issues but not so much on others. But the rule generally fits.
montanadave
08-19-13, 16:43
What you don't have the right to do, what NOBODY has the right to do is violate or otherwise undermine the Constitution of the United States and the rights which are "off limits" to government. And regardless of anyone's contribution to the country, no matter how significant, you cannot EARN the right to violate those "off limits" rights.
I don't wish to hijack the thread by taking off on a debate of constitutional law nor do I wish to conflate the two very separate issues being discussed in this thread.
The OP drew attention to a member of Congress, a combat veteran who served honorably and was grievously wounded, calling on the carpet a man seeking financial gain by falsely claiming benefits reserved for wounded veterans. Piss on him.
As for the statement above, I agree with the sentiment but the reality is the Constitution itself contains provisions which allow for the interpretation of the very rights contained within. Hence over two hundred years of judicial review by the Supreme Court, which has defined, redefined, and revisited yet again the extent of how "off limits" these rights are. Those that insist these rights are in some way absolute and exempt from revision or interpretation are ignoring history.
Eurodriver
08-19-13, 16:49
Just curious, how often do you vote for an anti-gun person who is running against a pro-gun person?
You weren't asking me but:
I've voted against my pro-gun mayor twice (He even campaigned on the issue of appointing a CLEO who was pro-NFA sign offs) because he jumped at the drop of a hat to install redlight cameras, "LEO drones", tolls, etc.
I also voted against my pro-gun Sheriff last November because the Democrat running promised to serve "tickets" for minor drug offenses rather than clogging our county jail up with innocent teenagers smoking a doobie.
Just curious, how often do you vote for an anti-gun person who is running against a pro-gun person?
I stopped supporting Martinez (pro gun) when he advocated amnesty for illegals.
But your question is nonsense. If you want to restrict ANY of my rights, you won't get my vote.
So if you are pro gun but want to limit what I can read or watch I will not vote for you. But if you are pro first amendment but want to limit what kinds of guns I can own I will not vote for you.
thopkins22
08-19-13, 17:39
As for the statement above, I agree with the sentiment but the reality is the Constitution itself contains provisions which allow for the interpretation of the very rights contained within. Hence over two hundred years of judicial review by the Supreme Court, which has defined, redefined, and revisited yet again the extent of how "off limits" these rights are. Those that insist these rights are in some way absolute and exempt from revision or interpretation are ignoring history.
Ditto on thread hijacking...but I wanted to point out that nowhere in the Constitution is judicial review mentioned, nor is it implied other than for state level laws. The bill of rights mean what they say, NOT until some judge decides otherwise. The supremacy clause states that every state judge is bound to the constitution, but makes no mention of federal judges and laws written by congress.
Two hundred years ago judges just started doing it, and we have allowed it and pretended that it was part of the system as designed ever since. Sometimes it works for us and sometimes it does not. I'm not sure whether or not it's a net positive for liberty or not.
Come on guys. While I agree with you all on the Gun control aspect, the persons stance on one issue does not invalidate their stance on others.
Gotta agree, as a politician I abhor her views on the 2nd amendment and hope like hell she gets voted out and replaced by someone who doesn't pick and choose the parts of the constitution that she likes.
Having said that it is Castillo's actions and the rightful dressing down by a disabled veteran that are the subject of the OP. Castillo's conduct is completely reprehensible. Now could anyone have dressed him down? Of course. But it is so much more powerful and effective when someone like Duckworth is the one to do it. Posers like this are why I wish we still had the stocks. They would be a perfect punishment to an jack ass like this.
I don't wish to hijack the thread by taking off on a debate of constitutional law nor do I wish to conflate the two very separate issues being discussed in this thread.
The OP drew attention to a member of Congress, a combat veteran who served honorably and was grievously wounded, calling on the carpet a man seeking financial gain by falsely claiming benefits reserved for wounded veterans. Piss on him.
As for the statement above, I agree with the sentiment but the reality is the Constitution itself contains provisions which allow for the interpretation of the very rights contained within. Hence over two hundred years of judicial review by the Supreme Court, which has defined, redefined, and revisited yet again the extent of how "off limits" these rights are. Those that insist these rights are in some way absolute and exempt from revision or interpretation are ignoring history.
That they have been violated continuously does not mean it is ok.
It's kinda like the fact that we had slavery while declaring our independence. It was wrong, it was in contradiction to what was stated, but it was done anyway.
Right only exist when you force the government to recognize and respect them. Sometimes big organizations and voting blocks will do it on your behalf, sometimes not. Sadly that is the reality.
What would I say to her?
"POG"
:D
being from Hawaii POG is a drink ?
does it have another meaning ?
What would I say to her?
"POG"
:D
MountainRaven
08-19-13, 22:14
being from Hawaii POG is a drink ?
does it have another meaning ?
I would guess that he means, "pogue". Or the backronym "Person Other than Grunt".
ahhh that makes sense ;)
I have heard that term before thanks for clarifying :)
I would guess that he means, "pogue". Or the backronym "Person Other than Grunt".
being from Hawaii POG is a drink ?
does it have another meaning ?
I actually have POG in my fridge right now. Super ono cuz
cool :)
found a place that sells Hawaiian Sun drinks here :) so get my few flavors to bring back memories :)
one of my pog memories is going to this buffet my buddy and I used to go to after being on the waves all day and pretty much hanging out at the drink part filling up ! hahahah
then eating choke amounts Portuguese sausage and rice and eggs all mixed together with shoyu :)
still eat shoyu on my eggs !
I actually have POG in my fridge right now. Super ono cuz
montanadave
08-20-13, 03:40
Moco loco for the win!
my mouth is watering :)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattdekneef/38-problems-only-people-from-hawaii-will-understan-cskf
Moco loco for the win!
I would guess that he means, "pogue". Or the backronym "Person Other than Grunt".
It's not poque, it's POG. At least you got the definition of it correct.
montanadave
08-20-13, 13:34
It's not poque, it's POG. At least you got the definition of it correct.
The term is generally used in a disparaging manner. Why would you direct it towards Rep. Duckworth?
It's not poque, it's POG. At least you got the definition of it correct.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogue
All I heard was two turds fighting for room in the punch bowl.
Eurodriver
08-20-13, 16:02
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogue
Doesn't matter what Wikipedia says.
Its POG.
Personnel - Other than - Grunt.
The term is generally used in a disparaging manner. Why would you direct it towards Rep. Duckworth?
My question as well.
HackerF15E
08-20-13, 18:20
What you don't have the right to do, what NOBODY has the right to do is violate or otherwise undermine the Constitution of the United States and the rights which are "off limits" to government. And regardless of anyone's contribution to the country, no matter how significant, you cannot EARN the right to violate those "off limits" rights.
Fixed it for you. It's possible to respect the military service and sacrifice, while simultaneously finding the political career and personal demeanor to be reprehensible. It's not an all or nothing subject.
+1 to both of these. We need a "like" or "reputation" button on this forum.
The term is generally used in a disparaging manner. Why would you direct it towards Rep. Duckworth?
I suspect various assumptions were made.
A cynical person might suggest she chose to be a NG co pilot because it was a relatively safe "combat" role and she wanted the credibility to advance feminist causes, fast tracked up the officer ranks simply because she is a female and was building the foundations for her political career and she simply didn't count on the RPG hit.
As I'm generally cynical I wonder about all of the above, but at the same time I fully appreciate that she was in a combat role and is a combat wounded veteran with a Purple Heart and that hardly qualifies as a POG.
Just like any other politician I'm gonna call them like I see them. I recognize and respect her service, but that hardly gives her the right to violate her oath and undermine the Constitution in a way that violates the rights of all Americans.
I actually find it much worse when a member of the military, especially a combat wounded veteran does such things. If anyone should know better, they should. It's like when a cop breaks the law for personal gain.
The term is generally used in a disparaging manner. Why would you direct it towards Rep. Duckworth?
Because, she's a POG. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogue
Ok wiseguy, Wiki is always spot on! Since POG is an acronym, please, do tell what the U and E stand for. Just because that's how it's pronounced, doesn't mean that's how it's spelled.
Doesn't matter what Wikipedia says.
Its POG.
Personnel - Other than - Grunt.
Thank you. SOMEONE gets it.
As I'm generally cynical I wonder about all of the above, but at the same time I fully appreciate that she was in a combat role and is a combat wounded veteran with a Purple Heart and that hardly qualifies as a POG.
Yeah... still a POG.
POG to me is still a Hawaiian drink :)
POUGE I have heard of and now I know why its a frigin band :) ahahahahhah
POG to me is still a Hawaiian drink :)
A drink I am now going to try, thanks to you! If I get addicted to that shit, you're getting an earful!
montanadave
08-21-13, 05:55
Because, she's a POG. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it.
Asked and answered. Thanks for the clarification.
Eurodriver
08-21-13, 07:49
Yeah... still a POG.
If your MOS is Motor-T but you end up with a broken down truck in country and hoof it with the grunts for three months, getting into firefights every day, getting wounded by enemy action, and even earning a silver star for bravery you're techinically still a POG.
Editted for brevity - this topic is over already.
MountainRaven
08-21-13, 08:46
Doesn't matter what Wikipedia says.
Its POG.
Personnel - Other than - Grunt.
Ahem.
Massive tangent here.
POG is a made-up acronym from a Vietnamese word: Pogue.
The acronym, supposedly meaning "Person (or personnel) Other than Grunt" came about fairly recently, whereas the word "Pogue" dates back to (logically) the conflict in Vietnam.
I abhor seeing "POG" written on the walls of shitter stalls.
I believe I have seen Iraqgunz say something similar, too - and much more recently - but cannot find it. (His postulation was that it was a French naval term, IIRC, going back to boys who were sodomized aboard ship.)
Let's briefly engage our brains, here:
If it actually were "POG" why wouldn't it be pronounced like everything else that is actually spelled P-O-G? "Pohg". Pog, dog, fog, SOG, bog.
But it's pronounced like "pogue". Like brogue, rogue, drogue, vogue, Hogue.
There are no words I can think of that are spelled "_og" that are pronounced like a word spelled "_ogue". And vice versa. I believe this is a clue.
Finally, I have never, ever heard the term used as anything but derisive. Mostly, I imagine, because it is difficult to imagine a situation in which you refer to an adult human being wearing your same uniform - whose job is perceived as being less difficult, less combat-oriented than your own - as a boy for sodomizing without derision. Last I checked, even LAV crewmen were 'pogues' despite their MOS being in the 03 occupational field.
montanadave
08-21-13, 11:00
Where does "pogie bait" fit into this thread hijack?
If it actually were "POG" why wouldn't it be pronounced like everything else that is actually spelled P-O-G? "Pohg". Pog, dog, fog, SOG, bog.
I'll bite. Ask any Army infantryman of this generation (the last 10 years or so) what a POG is. You'll get the same answer I've been giving. I'll concede that the term may have come from a Vietnam era word. I wouldn't know as I wasn't apart of that culture. Maybe it's a generational thing within the occupation. Either way, unless you've been apart of this group/culture, than I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Last I checked, even LAV crewmen were 'pogues' despite their MOS being in the 03 occupational field.
USMC has their own separate thing going on from Army.
Is everyone done crying? It really is a simple term that doesn't imply anything more than the acronym at face value. It's MY opinion. I didn't say you had to like it. Get over it. Sorry OP/mods, didn't intend to completely jack this thread.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.