The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2010 => Topic started by: bijou on October 07, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
-
Posted By Mr Wolf • [October 07, 2010]
UPDATE 2 AT BOTTOM
Last night, we received an interesting email from Bev Perlson, who heads the Band of Mothers group. She's got an awesome email list that is good for keeping up on what's going on around the country.
What was so disturbing was the email listed someone we all know- LTC(r) Allen West, and how the VFW, of all people, THE VEE-EFF-FRICKING-W, was ENDORSING HIS OPPONENT.
You read that right.
His opponent? Democrat Ron Klein. WHO HAS NEVER SERVED IN UNIFORM.
You read THAT right, too.
People, I've been pissed before. Mad, even. Upset. But this? THIS is treasonous to me. For a 'so called' veterans organization to pick a NON-SERVING, NON-VETERAN over one of the MOST PROMISING veterans running in politics is heinous. Disturbing. And shows just how far off-track the VFW has become.
As you may recall, when I returned from Iraq one of the first things I did was join VFW and Legion as 'life members'. Now, it seems, the time has come to rip, burn, and toss my Lifetime Membership for the VFW. I feel like they have completely left us at the station here. Over at the Farm Team, Jonn Lilyea lays out just who the VFW has announced they are supporting:
Barbara Boxer, Alcee Hastings, Barbara Lee, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulsky, Chris VanHollen, John Dingell, Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy and Patty Murray
...
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/10/burn-your-vfw-cards-vote-vets-runs-vfw-pac.html
-
The NH VFW is supporting Carol Che-Porter because she supported a VA hospital in state. Her other positions were less than stellar. Rember, John F. Kerry is vet as was the Lyndon the Johnson among others.
-
Here's my letter to the VFWPAC:
What the hell kind of list is THIS?
Ron Klein in favor of LTC (Ret.) Allen West??? Are you kidding me? A non-vet, liberal, moonbat in favor of a combat veteran who does the right thing, even though it cost him his career?
And here's a list of the other moonbats that you lunatics support:
Barbara Boxer, Alcee Hastings, Barbara Lee, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulsky, Chris VanHollen, John Dingell, Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy and Patty Murray, not to mention Harry Reid - who couldn't be more anti-military if he was born and bred on Haight-Ashbury.
As a Life Member, I'm outraged by these decisions. Something tells me that the American Legion might be a better fit for me and my money. At least they acknowledge and respect veterans who have served honorably in favor of non-veterans whose voting records clearly show an anti-military bias.
Have you people no shame?
XXXXX XXXXXXXX
SFC, USA, Retired
-
I know that National doesn't necessarily represent the voices of the various Posts, but there seems to be some massive fallout due to the recent posting of the VFW-PAC's endorsements. Here is a .pdf file of the endorsements:
http://www.vfwpac.org/Revised%20Endorsement%20List%20Sept%2024-1.pdf
The fallout starts here:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=20754
and continues on here:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/10/burn-your-vfw-cards-vote-vets-runs-vfw-pac.html
and here:
http://www.mafpac.org/?p=717
In short, it seems that National is endorsing non-Veterans over Veterans and several anti-Veteran politicians. What has happened to the "Vets helping Vets" meme?? In MY opinion, this is reprehensible, at best. The VFW should be JUMPING at the opportunity to endorse a Veteran over any Non-Veteran!! However, that doesn't seem to be the case!! >:(
All I will say is, "Stand By for Heavy Seas and Rolls !!"
-
The VFW should be JUMPING at the opportunity to endorse a Veteran over any Non-Veteran!!
I can't really say taking things that far is a good idea, it would mean picking a Charlie Rangel over a Dick Cheney, or Duke Cunningham over any non-crooks. They ought to be endorsing whichever candidate is best going to help vets, for sure, though.
-
Also here http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,49521.0.html could we get a merge?
-
Also here http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,49521.0.html could we get a merge?
Done, but I left it in GD...... :)
-
I can't really say taking things that far is a good idea, it would mean picking a Charlie Rangel over a Dick Cheney, or Duke Cunningham over any non-crooks. They ought to be endorsing whichever candidate is best going to help vets, for sure, though.
I see your point. However, they have, in many instances, picked historically anti-military politicians over Veterans. This site really points out the lunacy: http://www.mafpac.org/?p=717
I mean, seriously......Nancy Pelosi?? Harry Reid??
-
Called the VFW PAC in DC. Told them in no uncertain terms that they are risking having many, many members walk out on them, and that they better start listening to the rank-and-file members.
Also talked to John Calo (former state commander) and his wife. He's STILL pissed about it--and they pulled the same shit on us in 2008. We told the VFW PAC to endorse Jeb Bradley and they stabbed us in the back then as well.
-
My Post Commander knew the current National Commander from when he was out in California. He's addressing that and the bi-lingual insurance form with him, friend to friend. We're going to have to watch this fairly closely.
Seriously........ how the hell could ANYBODY endorse Sheila Jackson Lee??
-
I can't really say taking things that far is a good idea, it would mean picking a Charlie Rangel over a Dick Cheney, or Duke Cunningham over any non-crooks. They ought to be endorsing whichever candidate is best going to help vets, for sure, though.
Just a minor point but I believe taht Randy Cunningham wasn't a crook untill afer he was in office for a few years . Nothing he did during his Navy career has ever been in question. It;s not much but it's about all the guy has . IF it wasn't so serious what he did he would be a hero to many today. Some guys just don't know when to stop I guess.
-
Just a minor point but I believe taht Randy Cunningham wasn't a crook untill afer he was in office for a few years . Nothing he did during his Navy career has ever been in question. It;s not much but it's about all the guy has . IF it wasn't so serious what he did he would be a hero to many today. Some guys just don't know when to stop I guess.
Therein lies the difference between Dems and Republicans.
Our crooks are caught, investigated, and sent to prison.
Theirs are promoted after they're caught. No investigation, and short of Jim Traficant, no prison.
-
From the Florida State VFW Commander:
On behalf of the Department of Florida, I am writing to object to the manner in which the Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee made its endorsements for the United States Congress. This year’s process is both arbitrary and capricious and devoid of Department input. Consequently, I am asking each member of the Department of Florida to disregard the list of endorsements as published in this month’s VFW Magazine and vote their own conscience since we had no input into this year’s endorsement process.
Apparently, the Committee has abandoned the previous years’ process of “advise and consent†whereby it provided a list of proposed endorsees to the Departments for comment, concurrence, additions and deletions. The Department of Florida certainly understands that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the VFWPAC are necessarily separate entities, however, the PAC exists because of the support it derives from all Departments, Districts, Posts, Comrades and Sisters. Consequently, the Departments acting on behalf of its Districts, Posts and members should have an opportunity to voice its opinion on which Floridian candidates should or should not receive the endorsement of the VFW-PAC.
It is abundantly clear that the PAC has skewed this year’s endorsements towards incumbents. By weighting selections toward the sitting members of Congress, you are encouraging complacency and taking discourse out of the electoral process. Our position is that a process that only evaluates the voting record of sitting members inherently disadvantages those candidates who challenge incumbents. The extant process negates any previous public or private sector experience of a non-incumbent candidate.
I am concerned that the selection process adopted by the PAC will have both lasting and negative consequences on our ability to recruit and retain members in the Department of Florida. It is evident from the tone of the received emails that the VFW-PAC and by association the Veterans of Foreign Wars is not sewing the interests of some members and potential members. This regional firestorm could have been avoided if the PAC board and staff remembered the old adage that all politics are local.
http://networkedblogs.com/8SdsV
TRUTH!!
-
Oh, I felt the sting from that bitchslap all the way up here.
-
I wrote an op-ed on my take on the VFW:
A recent revelation of the political candidates that the VFW-PAC has endorsed has caused quite the National disturbance. The link to the candidates that the VFW endorses can be found here: http://www.vfwpac.org/Revised%20Endorsement%20List%20Sept%2024-1.pdf If one carefully looks at the list, there are significant numbers of candidates that are generally anti-military and/ or anti-veteran. There have been cries of outrage over the endorsement of certain candidates. I am told that the way it is SUPPOSED to work is that VFW National obtains input from the various State Departments, which obtains input from its various Districts, which obtain inputs from the various Posts within the District. It is clear that this is NOT happening. People are cancelling their memberships in droves. From the Florida State Commander of the VFW:
“On behalf of the Department of Florida, I am writing to object to the manner in which the Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee made its endorsements for the United States Congress. This year’s process is both arbitrary and capricious and devoid of Department input. Consequently, I am asking each member of the Department of Florida to disregard the list of endorsements as published in this month’s VFW Magazine and vote their own conscience since we had no input into this year’s endorsement process.
Apparently, the Committee has abandoned the previous years’ process of “advise and consent†whereby it provided a list of proposed endorsees to the Departments for comment, concurrence, additions and deletions. The Department of Florida certainly understands that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the VFWPAC are necessarily separate entities, however, the PAC exists because of the support it derives from all Departments, Districts, Posts, Comrades and Sisters. Consequently, the Departments acting on behalf of its Districts, Posts and members should have an opportunity to voice its opinion on which Floridian candidates should or should not receive the endorsement of the VFW-PAC.
It is abundantly clear that the PAC has skewed this year’s endorsements towards incumbents. By weighting selections toward the sitting members of Congress, you are encouraging complacency and taking discourse out of the electoral process. Our position is that a process that only evaluates the voting record of sitting members inherently disadvantages those candidates who challenge incumbents. The extant process negates any previous public or private sector experience of a non-incumbent candidate.
I am concerned that the selection process adopted by the PAC will have both lasting and negative consequences on our ability to recruit and retain members in the Department of Florida. It is evident from the tone of the received emails that the VFW-PAC and by association the Veterans of Foreign Wars is not sewing the interests of some members and potential members. This regional firestorm could have been avoided if the PAC board and staff remembered the old adage that all politics are local.â€- Pete Nicholson A link to the actual letter to download and read can be found here: http://www.blackfive.net/files/dept-of-fl-response-to-pac-endorsement-2.pdf
It appears that the VFW-PAC is supporting the following politicians: Barbara Boxer, Alcee Hastings, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Lee, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulsky, Chris VanHollen, John Dingell, Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy, Sheila Jackson Lee and Patty Murray. These politicians are some of the most reprehensible politicians when it comes to supporting our troops, the war effort and many of the veterans. I will admit that some of these politicians hold a better track record on Veteran’s Issues than they do in supporting our Active Duty troops. I’ve looked at couple of other Democrats that the VFW-PAC has endorsed in an effort to discern WHY the VFW-PAC threw their support behind a certain candidate, typically an incumbent and almost ALWAYS not a Veteran. What I’ve discovered is that some of their endorsement are for candidates that are pro-veteran and even pro-Military. I’m not suggesting that ALL Democrats are bad, but seriously? Sheila Jackson Lee? Barbara “Don’t Call Me, Ma’am†Boxer, Nancy Pelosi? Harry “the War is lost†Reid? Alcee Hastings, a known criminal? Come on, give me a break! I’m also not suggesting that a Veteran is always the answer. I remember a time when I THOUGHT that Jimmy Carter, an ex-Navy Nuclear Power Engineer, would be a good candidate. I even voted for the man on that premise and that alone. I was young and naïve. My first four years in the Navy, mostly during Carter’s regime, were some of the toughest times for my Squadron. Cannibalization of aircraft parts were at an all time high. Many times we had to suspend operations near the end of the Fiscal Quarter because there were no funds to operate with and I even recall a time when the entire military was wondering whether or not we’d be paid at the end of the month. That said, I think that I’d choose the side of a Veteran vs. someone who has never served and views the military with contempt or someone who is historically anti-military. To quote an excerpt from a blog; “What we need in Congress are strong Representatives that put this Nation and the Constitution ahead of personal ambitions and party loyalty. Our strong pool of Combat Veterans ready to accept the mantle of leadership is a good place to look for true Representativesâ€. http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/10/iraq-vet-ilario-pantano-guns-for-congress-nc-7.html
As the Post Quartermaster, an elected Officer, for a North Texas Post, I feel that members cancelling their membership will be counter-productive to the issue at hand. It is tantamount to not voting in an election because one doesn’t care for any of the candidates. It’s quite obvious that the VFW-PAC has acted in its own interests, instead of using the tools they have to obtain a consensus. The VFW, being a democratic type system, holds elections each Spring. These officers are duly elected by its members at the Post, District, State and National levels. By dropping out of the VFW, it will be nigh on impossible to effect any change. That change MUST come from within. I won’t even get into just how difficult that it will be to recruit new members when an organization is in chaos. No, we must stay the course, make ourselves heard and elect responsible individuals that will see to our needs instead of using their position in the organization for their own ends.
Thor
USN(ret)
and now, it seems as if the VFW is re-evaluating the need for a PAC due to the massive outcry and discontent:
VFW Leadership at Odds with VFW-PAC
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct. 8, 2010 - The national line officers of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are at odds with the VFW Political Action Committee (PAC), calling the methodology process used by the PAC “seriously flawed at best this year and in immediate need of extensive review,†in the wake of the recent congressional endorsements made by the committee.
“Even though the law requires that VFW-PAC be a separate organization, the acronym ‘VFW’ is attached to the committee and the natural assumption is that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is somehow making the endorsement decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth, but perception is reality,†said National Commander Richard Eubank.
“Obviously, an organization's political positions have to reflect the opinions of its members. But those opinions can't be perceived as ‘off the wall,’ and the methodology used this year to grade candidates obviously is skewed in favor of the incumbent. That isn’t fair, and it actually subverts the democratic process.â€
Because of the controversy surrounding the endorsements, VFW line officers have decided to bring the question of continued existence of the PAC to the floor during the 112th VFW national convention in August.
Richard L. Eubank
National Commander
Richard L. DeNoyer
Sr. Vice Commander
John E. Hamilton
Jr. Vice Commander
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=5596
-
To little to late from National
I'm about five seconds from shredding and burning my Life member card
-
Just out of curiousity...
How many veterans vote for a candidate solely based on the VFWPAC endorsements?
I am obviously looking for the personal opinion of the board membership and not hard facts.
-
I don't base my vote solely on the VFW-PAC's endorsements, (or any other PAC), but they may factor into whom I choose. IMO, that would be asinine. One needs to look at the big picture. What irks me is that they endorsed candidates that should have NEVER been endorsed by ANY Veteran's or Pro-military group.
-
Bingo--but you get some people who can be BS'ed into believing that a candidate is pro-military based on that endorsement. Che-Porter is running sign that say, "ENDORSED BY VFW" with VFW PAC in itty-bitty letters at the bottom. She just so loves to trot her "Vietnam-era husband" (to the point of almost not saying "era"), with the implication that she somehow knows jack shit about what deployed spouses go through. (Hint: she doesn't. Her husband did two years in the early 70's at Fitzsimmons in Denver, never deployed or went TAD.)
One of her little pet projects is to try to get a VA hospital in NH, with her boo-hooing and bitching that we're the only state in the nation that doesn't have one. What she DOESN'T say is that there are more hospital VA beds within a 2-hour drive of any point in New Hampshire than damn near anyplace in the country--i.e., we don't NEED a damned hospital. THAT and that reason alone is why the VFW PAC likes her, because of their warped perception that she "cares", despite her previous statements against the troops, Iraq, etc.
-
FWIW, I could claim to be a "Viet Nam Era" Veteran. I joined in Feb 75, went on Active Duty in July 75. However, I don't and I won't.
-
I don't base my vote solely on the VFW-PAC's endorsements, (or any other PAC), but they may factor into whom I choose. IMO, that would be asinine. One needs to look at the big picture. What irks me is that they endorsed candidates that should have NEVER been endorsed by ANY Veteran's or Pro-military group.
The reason I asked is because I know of folks that have voted for a candidate based strictly on the endorsement of the AARP for example.
-
The reason I asked is because I know of folks that have voted for a candidate based strictly on the endorsement of the AARP for example.
I definitely know of that kind of thing happening, so it's not a stretch to conclude that some vets would actually vote based on the endorsement of the VFW PAC. These would be the vets who are older, less inclined to be politically astute, and who are comfortable voting based on that endorsement. It's shortsighted, weak, and inherently lazy, but it happens.
AARP is outfitted by slugs, moonbats, and wacko libs who actually think they're pulling the wool over people's eyes - and no doubt, they do for some.
-
It's supporting Alan Grayson FL-8? :bs:
-
It's supporting Alan Grayson FL-8? :bs:
Read my blog: http://thors-spot.blogspot.com/
In a nutshell, the VFW-PAC automatically supports the incumbent. It's messed up. In short, if the incumbent votes in favor of a bill of interest to the VFW 10 times (for Congress) or 6 times (for Senate), they get the nod. Newcomers have NO chance of getting an endorsement from the VFW-PAC.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/11/vfw-endorses-senator-maam/
The VFW has a history of tilting towards liberals, but this seems rather stunning. Barbara Boxer, who dressed down a general in a Senate hearing for calling her “ma’am,†won the endorsement of VFW’s political-action committee yesterday. The move also comes despite Boxer’s votes to curtail military spending — or perhaps because of them....more
Are you as surprised as I am, or am I not getting the mission of the VFW?
-
Yes, this was on the news this morning. Even more puzzling was the VFW's official response. Something about "we have a problem with our process" or some such. Reminded me of the New York GOP backroom committee who selected Scozzafava last year.
-
you would think that an organization's "leadership" would be more in harmony with it's membership.
AARP endorsed obamacare, and their membership was ready to storm their headquarters with torches and pitchforks.
-
I found this at the VFW website:
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=5596
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct. 8, 2010 - The national line officers of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are at odds with the VFW Political Action Committee (PAC), calling the methodology process used by the PAC “seriously flawed at best this year and in immediate need of extensive review,†in the wake of the recent congressional endorsements made by the committee.
“Even though the law requires that VFW-PAC be a separate organization, the acronym ‘VFW’ is attached to the committee and the natural assumption is that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is somehow making the endorsement decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth, but perception is reality,†said National Commander Richard Eubank.
“Obviously, an organization's political positions have to reflect the opinions of its members. But those opinions can't be perceived as ‘off the wall,’ and the methodology used this year to grade candidates obviously is skewed in favor of the incumbent. That isn’t fair, and it actually subverts the democratic process.â€
Because of the controversy surrounding the endorsements, VFW line officers have decided to bring the question of continued existence of the PAC to the floor during the 112th VFW national convention in August.
I wonder who else they've endorsed?
-
I wonder who else they've endorsed?
Kendrick Meeks :whatever:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54322469/VFW-PAC-Endorsements
-
Kendrick Meeks :whatever:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54322469/VFW-PAC-Endorsements
Apparently endorsing non-vets over some highly qualified vets.....let the membership card burning begin!
http://bigpeace.com/mrwolf/2010/10/11/burn-those-vfw-membership-cards/
-
you would think that an organization's "leadership" would be more in harmony with it's membership.
AARP endorsed obamacare, and their membership was ready to storm their headquarters with torches and pitchforks.
And based on this result, you'd think that AARP members would begin to get a clue - AARP does not give two shits about its members. It's all about money, insurance, and politics. Too bad most of its members are blind to this kind of thing.
-
And based on this result, you'd think that AARP members would begin to get a clue - AARP does not give two shits about its members. It's all about money, insurance, and politics. Too bad most of its members are blind to this kind of thing.
Actually they have......AARP has lost over two million members in the past year.
doc
-
Actually they have......AARP has lost over two million members in the past year.
doc
This business with AARP is only important to me because Mrs E is ga-ga over this money-grubbing socialist group, and I wouldn't present an AARP card if it were the only discount in town. BUT, where are you getting your information?
The only thing I can find is AARP's loss of 60K members in Aug. 09 - for a group that numbers 40 million, that's chump change. No doubt SOME seniors did their homework and saw Obamacare as the sham that it is, but where did you find that 2 million have left?
5% is still a fairly small number, no matter how you stack it. And does that number of losses factor in with the regular losses due to death and complacency?
I'd like to think that America's seniors are waking up, but I ain't so sure....too many of 'em stay fairly clueless.
-
Just a minor point but I believe taht Randy Cunningham wasn't a crook untill afer he was in office for a few years . Nothing he did during his Navy career has ever been in question. It;s not much but it's about all the guy has . IF it wasn't so serious what he did he would be a hero to many today. Some guys just don't know when to stop I guess.
He was in the House, so he ran for election every two years. That means he was a crook when he was running in several election cycles, a crook with a distinguished military record, but still a crook. The fact that he was a crooked weasel had nothing to do with his Navy career, nor did I say it did.
-
This business with AARP is only important to me because Mrs E is ga-ga over this money-grubbing socialist group, and I wouldn't present an AARP card if it were the only discount in town. BUT, where are you getting your information?
The only thing I can find is AARP's loss of 60K members in Aug. 09 - for a group that numbers 40 million, that's chump change. No doubt SOME seniors did their homework and saw Obamacare as the sham that it is, but where did you find that 2 million have left?
5% is still a fairly small number, no matter how you stack it. And does that number of losses factor in with the regular losses due to death and complacency?
I'd like to think that America's seniors are waking up, but I ain't so sure....too many of 'em stay fairly clueless.
American Seniors Association (which we joined) is only one of several conservative seniors groups......during the run-up to ObamaCare, they offered "free" one year memberships to any seniors (65 or older) that mailed in their AARP cards, and pledged not to renew........they received over two million cards. And they are only one of several groups that we looked at, offering similiar benefits, so there are likely seniors that joined other conservative seniors groups as well.....
AARP is open to anyone age fifty or over, so it really isn't a group strictly for seniors, and many join for discounts on travel (tour packages), auto insurance, auto club, hotel discounts, etc. (AARP membership is not required to participate in the United Health Care Medicare plans that are offered under their name) that has nothing to do with senior advocacy. Those are likely the bulk of the alledged forty million.......and since they are really not a group that is interested in seniors, but are in fact a "liberal political advocacy group"......I would expect them to lie.......kinda like the DUmp has 100,000 "members". Similiar claims have been made by the Brady Campaign and MoveOn.org, which have also been refuted opon close scrutiny.
As an example.......my wife joined AARP in 1995 (so we could get a deal on a cruise package), and never renewed her membership since........they STILL carry her as a member, and mail out new cards every year.......just like DU.......their "membership" numbers are very likely bogus.
Further, as a quasi "non-profit" they don''t really have to support their membership claims.
Mrs E is ga-ga over this money-grubbing socialist group,
The above makes you a much more tolerant person than I........I couldn't dream of being married to a liberal........as those that I've met (intentionally very few) possess such a foreign value structure that I simply couldn't tolerate being in the same room with them on an ongoing basis.......not to mention having enough in common to base a relationship.......
doc
-
American Seniors Association (which we joined) is only one of several conservative seniors groups......during the run-up to ObamaCare, they offered "free" one year memberships to any seniors (65 or older) that mailed in their AARP cards, and pledged not to renew........they received over two million cards. And they are only one of several groups that we looked at, offering similiar benefits, so there are likely seniors that joined other conservative seniors groups as well.....
AARP is open to anyone age fifty or over, so it really isn't a group strictly for seniors, and many join for discounts on travel (tour packages), auto insurance, auto club, hotel discounts, etc. (AARP membership is not required to participate in the United Health Care Medicare plans that are offered under their name) that has nothing to do with senior advocacy. Those are likely the bulk of the alledged forty million.......and since they are really not a group that is interested in seniors, but are in fact a "liberal political advocacy group"......I would expect them to lie.......kinda like the DUmp has 100,000 "members". Similiar claims have been made by the Brady Campaign and MoveOn.org, which have also been refuted opon close scrutiny.
As an example.......my wife joined AARP in 1995 (so we could get a deal on a cruise package), and never renewed her membership since........they STILL carry her as a member, and mail out new cards every year.......just like DU.......their "membership" numbers are very likely bogus.
Further, as a quasi "non-profit" they don''t really have to support their membership claims.
The above makes you a much more tolerant person than I........I couldn't dream of being married to a liberal........as those that I've met (intentionally very few) possess such a foreign value structure that I simply couldn't tolerate being in the same room with them on an ongoing basis.......not to mention having enough in common to base a relationship.......
doc
Hey, that sounds just like the dumpster membership list. :rotf:
-
American Seniors Association (which we joined) is only one of several conservative seniors groups......during the run-up to ObamaCare, they offered "free" one year memberships to any seniors (65 or older) that mailed in their AARP cards, and pledged not to renew........they received over two million cards. And they are only one of several groups that we looked at, offering similiar benefits, so there are likely seniors that joined other conservative seniors groups as well.....
AARP is open to anyone age fifty or over, so it really isn't a group strictly for seniors, and many join for discounts on travel (tour packages), auto insurance, auto club, hotel discounts, etc. (AARP membership is not required to participate in the United Health Care Medicare plans that are offered under their name) that has nothing to do with senior advocacy. Those are likely the bulk of the alledged forty million.......and since they are really not a group that is interested in seniors, but are in fact a "liberal political advocacy group"......I would expect them to lie.......kinda like the DUmp has 100,000 "members". Similiar claims have been made by the Brady Campaign and MoveOn.org, which have also been refuted opon close scrutiny.
As an example.......my wife joined AARP in 1995 (so we could get a deal on a cruise package), and never renewed her membership since........they STILL carry her as a member, and mail out new cards every year.......just like DU.......their "membership" numbers are very likely bogus.
Further, as a quasi "non-profit" they don''t really have to support their membership claims.
The above makes you a much more tolerant person than I........I couldn't dream of being married to a liberal........as those that I've met (intentionally very few) possess such a foreign value structure that I simply couldn't tolerate being in the same room with them on an ongoing basis.......not to mention having enough in common to base a relationship.......
doc
I concur with the business about the AARP cards coming in every year, regardless. As I'm the one who deals with the money, bill-paying, etc., I can certainly say that I'm not paying membership. I saw an envelope come in the other day with the membership cards. I threw the one with my name on it away.
I believe they're a 501(c)(4), which puts 'em in the lobbyist camp, as so-called "non-profits":
* 501(c)(4) exemption status gives civic organizations the authority to operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare issues. Net earnings by such organizations are devoted exclusively to charitable, recreational, and/or educational purposes.
* 501(c)(4) exemption status also gives organizations an unlimited ability to lobby for legislation to benefit it's members while being allowed to participate in political campaigns.
link (http://www.moneymatters101.com/retirement/aarp.asp)
As to being married to a liberal, she's not a rabid, DU-type moonbat. As an educator, she's drunk the Kool-Aid and is comfortable in the role. We don't discuss politics at home because she loses the arguments and doesn't like to lose.
I've often wondered how Mary Matalin and James Carville get along.....
-
Here's the entire rundown on the entire VFW-PAC thing. http://thors-spot.blogspot.com/
The problem is in the way the candidates are selected by the PAC. They have to vote 7 times in favor of some veterans' issues bills (different ones), if they are running for Senate. 10 times, if they are running for Congress. Where the problem lies is that newcomers, like Jesse Kelly, Charles Lollar, Col. West, etc. don't have a voting record in Washington. So, because of that, the PAC automatically endorses the incumbent as long as the boxes are checked. Bear in mind, this doesn't mean that the bill has to pass, only that they voted for it. It WILL be addressed next August at the next National Convention. There are MANY Combat Vets that are EXTREMELY pissed. Either the PAC goes away or the way they perform their selection gets changed.
-
Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements. :banghead:
-
Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements. :banghead:
Opposes is a nice way to put it. The PAC effectively told the VFW and their members to go pound sand.
Sounds like they need to go bye-bye.
-
Opposes is a nice way to put it. The PAC effectively told the VFW and their members to go pound sand.
Sounds like they need to go bye-bye.
This hit the national conservative talk radio circuit today......heard it on Laura Ingram's show this morning.......she has asked the VFW national commander to be interviewed on her show.......
doc
-
Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements. :banghead:
**** them then. They don't speak for me or many more Vets.
-
Had our post meeting. 75% of the attendees are pissed, 17% had no idea or anything to add, and the other 8% supports the PAC's decision (we don't to guess on their political persuasion, do we?) Anyways, the outrage is there and this is how it starts, from the ground level and on up.
-
Further news on the subject. The VFW National Commander contacted the PAC and asked for them to simply NOT endorse anybody. The VFW-PAC opposes his request and intends on remaining steadfast in their endorsements. :banghead:
That's sorta like cutting your nose off to spite your face, ain't it?
What would it take for the VFW to simply dissolve the PAC? And reorganize it under new management?
-
That's sorta like cutting your nose off to spite your face, ain't it?
What would it take for the VFW to simply dissolve the PAC? And reorganize it under new management?
The National Convention, which will be held next August. Per our by-laws, it has to be voted on by the delegates. In the interim, our post is sending a letter to National requesting that the current PAC members be relieved of duties until this entire issue is resolved.
-
An update can be found here: http://thors-spot.blogspot.com/
In short, the PAC is going to go away.
-
An update can be found here: http://thors-spot.blogspot.com/
In short, the PAC is going to go away.
:cheersmate:
-
Good to hear.
Reid made a point during that debate to point out that the VFW endorsed him.
-
Good to hear.
Reid made a point during that debate to point out that the VFW endorsed him.
I guess he missed this letter:
(http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/VFWnoconfidence-letter.jpg)
-
Not surprising, given that Reid has his head buried so far up his own ass that he can't see his rectum due to the hanging hemmorhoids.
-
I guess he missed this letter:
(http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/VFWnoconfidence-letter.jpg)
Ow!
Was an awfully nice way for the CINC to tell the PAC to go frig themselves. I'm afraid I would have been a bit more blunt.
-
I guess he missed this letter:
(http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/VFWnoconfidence-letter.jpg)
KUDOs to Eubank for stepping up and dealing with issue in a timely fashion.
-
Yeah, he did miss that memo. It came out late in the day of that debate (both were on Oct 14th) I don't think that it was published on the VFW site until the 15th.
-
Nice to see they rescinded the endorsements.
Now I can renew my membership without any guilt.