northshorebamaman

quote:

---

He was an MP and never saw combat or deployed to a combat area.

---

What is this strange idea that injuries only “count” if they happen in certain MOSs and under combat conditions? I know infantry soldiers rated at 100 who were permanently disabled doing routine stateside training. One buddy fell from a ropes course, snapped his neck, and is now a paraplegic. No firefight, no deployment, not even a war yet (this was 99).

I also know a mechanic rated at 100 who lost a leg and suffered severe burns over most of his body after crawling into a burning vehicle to save another soldier. The soldier he saved was an infantry PFC fresh out of OSUT (army infantry basic) who walked away with minor physical injuries and now also holds a 100 rating, mostly for PTSD.

Under the feelings-based system some of you are proposing, we’re supposed to believe the infantry kid deserves a higher rating than the man who pulled him out of the fire. You can try to unfrick that logic if you want, but good luck.

Or, we could make this simple and fair by rating the actual injury received.

Instead, some of you keep trying to reinvent the wheel and come up with new ways to disqualify service members from the disability compensation they were explicitly promised in the event they were injured. And yes, it is compensation. It is not civilian disability insurance, no matter how many people in these threads confuse the two or fail to comprehend the clear difference. Service members sign contracts that give the military total control over what risks and injuries they may be subjected to throughout their term of service. These injuries occur both stateside and overseas as well as in combat or in training. The compensation exists because of that reality.

What kind of idiot would attend jump school, for example, fully aware they could be seriously or catastrophically injured, and just arse out of luck and potentially no ability to earn a living unless the injury happens during a combat jump?

This obsession with narrowing who “deserves” compensation isn’t principled and it collapses the second you apply it to real cases instead of hypothetical stereotypes because, in reality, you're just proposing a system based on emotions about which jobs you personally respect rather than logic. Why do all this bullshite instead of just basing it on the only thing that actually matters: the injury itself?

quote:

---

No dummy, Im saying it based on more legitimate judgements, like what activities you performed.

Why would anyone be given disability if they're not disabled?

---

Why does this make more sense than basing it on the injury itself? I've got to understand this first.

quote:

---

Like most things, people are generally ignorant of how any particular system actually works and just go off of some Facebook article or what a friend of a friend that they know usually told them. That kid that posted in OP could very well have a 0% rating and was just talking shite.

---

These pop up every week now, and most of the “proof” offered is either impossible on its face or isn’t actually evidence of fraud. An 80 percent tinnitus claim doesn’t exist, and “He has a job and a nice truck” isn’t fraud. Once you start noticing how many of these stories fall apart the second you touch them, it’s hard not to wonder how much of this “problem” is just people repeating bad info they never bothered to check about a subject they know little about.

When you start noticing how many of these claims are simply untrue, I think it's fair to question whether the issue is being inflated by people who don’t really understand how the system works. And that raises another fair question: if so many stories aren’t accurate, what exactly is driving the motive to make shite up to push the narrative that vets are suddenly gaming the system in unprecedented numbers?

Then there’s the OT's favorite stat: the percentage rise in disability claims. And every time it's brought up, any and all context magically disappears. This generation of vets served in a military that was much smaller than it used to be, and that smaller force spent two decades deployed. This generation averaged more days in combat or combat zones and averaged more days in contact than any previous generation of Americans. That’s not the same thing as saying they faced more intense combat than previous generations, but more accumulated exposure does mean significantly more wear on the body. Add in the fact that wounds are far more survivable today and that PTSD/TBI are actually recognized instead of brushed off as “walk it off,” and it shouldn't be the gigantic fricking shocker for so many on here that the numbers went up that it seems to be..

The plot twist is that Americans overwhelmingly supported sending these people to war. Meaning, statistically, a lot of the people complaining in this thread were probably cheering it on in the beginning, even though no one admits it now. The pivot to framing vets as milking the system when the bill finally comes due for injuries and conditions they sustained doing exactly what the majority of the country (and many in this thread) asked them to do is deeply disappointing.

Fraud exists, sure. But the giant shadow version people keep describing being supported by so many claims that fail to survive initial contact should at least lead to a small question about where these narratives are coming from and why they’re so popular with folks who can’t explain how the VA rating system works or understand the basic difference between VA disability compensation and Social Security disability insurance.

quote:

---

No, but I really like looking at maps.

---

We had this huge thing when I was a kid. I must’ve spent hundreds of hours laying on the living room floor flipping through it, then digging through our encyclopedia set to read about the places I found, or trying to locate the most remote town in Siberia. It’s sad that kind of experience is basically gone now. Kids can learn so much on their own and actually enjoy it when there aren’t digital distractions.

And it gives me an edge on trivia nights.

quote:

---

Serious question: would you suck Trump’s dick if he asked you to?

---

quote:

---

Why do all of you weirdos think about thag all the time
Its suspect

Please explain what your issue is with it

But at least be coherent

---

Deflection noted.

quote:

---

And they have us fighting one another instead of coming together and fighting them. That would be a cause worth taking up.

---

It would be, but it never happen. The playbook’s too effective: tell people it’s not their fault, hand them a villain to blame, feed them someone to hate, and loot their pockets while they tear each other apart. The cruel irony is that the ones most easily played by it usually see themselves as “free thinkers” and call everyone else sheep.

Some folks here won’t like it, but if you’re still buying into team politics or treating your neighbors like the enemy, you’re not a patriot. You’re a fool and a useful idiot running interference for the people who are actually robbing you blind..

quote:

---

This ain`t good for anyone.

---

No, it isn’t. And the replies in this thread justifying it as some kind of payback just prove how many people are fine trampling fundamental American rights as long as it hurts the “other side.” It’s petty, reckless, and ultimately self-defeating.

No. :lol:

wtf

quote:

---

but you said middle is the rule for long and narrow? it's not the exact rule?

---

I did? I thought I said:

quote:

---

Because the state is long and narrow, Tennesseans historically divided it into three linear regions, not a center point.

---