Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
80s and early 90, the VA was a hellhole and a death trap, I know there are vets that will never come back because of those times.

Do you have guys from the different vet groups helping out? Being on a senators ass helps as well. Keep on fighting for what you earned.

DAV is up to their necks, easier to get the VA itself on the phone, I've been working with Colorado's state veteran's support group. What really ticks me off is that no one told me when I went through TAPS classes* that I could have had the DAV or MCL or whatever group I wanted to represent me working with me from the very start....

*TAPS classes are transition classes for members of the military returning to civilian life and includes presentations on how to get VA bennie applications started, how to write resumes, etc.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
NH DMV is fine. Never had any problems there. Our politicians (R & D) seem to insist that the VA is good.

NH DMV is a Shangri-La. I used to wonder why people would always complain about the DMV when I lived there.

Then I moved to California, and it's every horrible thing you've heard of.

The VA isn't bad, it's just huge so it takes a while to get stuff done.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the DMV's I've been to in NYC were always relatively efficient and friendly. The ones I've been to in Iowa have been much less efficient, but still fairly friendly. I've really never had the horror story experience with civil servants they way the internet tells me I should have, be it police officers or postal employees. I guess they aren't as interesting to read about.

In Missouri, our DMV is privatized--and at least in my city, a very painful experience.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
In Missouri, our DMV is privatized--and at least in my city, a very painful experience.

Oh yeah... they suck here...

Where do you live? I know a REALLY good one in the Bridgeton Area... I'm never there longer than 30 minutes.

Hhhmmmm I would mention on how I "cheat" the system but Fraz might actually come to WA to shoot me....wasn't happy camper last time I explain

Washington's DMVs aren't too bad and most of our recurring activities (renewals and registration being the big ones) are all done on the web. I renewed my tags one year while commuting home and stuck in traffic from my smartphone.

In Minnesota, I also never understood the DMV hatred.

Then, I moved to Florida for a bit, and everything was made clear to me. it took me 8 hours at the DMV to get my new state driver's license.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.

You're in the 25-34 demographic, right? Men in that age group turn out at ~45%.

To put it simply, we don't vote. We drink, start careers, and try to get laid.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.

You're in the 25-34 demographic, right? Men in that age group turn out at ~45%.

To put it simply, we don't vote. We drink, start careers, and try to get laid.

Twenty two actually, I'm still more for the drinking, starting a career and trying to get laid thing then whatever everyone else my age seems to be doing. I have my mail in ballot in hand though.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

That claim also uses a hodge podge stew of numbers and for all intents/purposes is a lie;

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-new-math-for-jobs-plan-doesnt-add-up/2012/10/15/fd1d1e1c-170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

Huh, I didn't know Mankiw worked for him. He wrote the textbook I used in introductory economics.

 d-usa wrote:
No CTRL&C, CTRL&V from the blogs yet as to what our opinion should be?

[img]http://www.pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/millions-head-to-internet-to-figure-out-their-own29948.jpg[img]

The onion has you covered.

dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.

You're in the 25-34 demographic, right? Men in that age group turn out at ~45%.

To put it simply, we don't vote. We drink, start careers, and try to get laid.

All lofty and prestigious goals.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.

Then vote for one of the third parties.

True. If a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote, then they qualify for additional federal election funding, and potentially will be invited to more debates. Plus, you may want to vote for down ticket positions and amendments.

Or don't and disrespect all those people who have fought and died to get the priviledge of voting. It is your choice.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.

Then vote for one of the third parties.

I do, unfortunately the two clowns are the viable Presidential candidates this year and I was simply saying I'm not voting for EITHER of them. Yes I'm putting a name down on the ballot, but at the point in this election where I'm not voting for Romney or Obama I might as well not be voting in the Presidential election this year, no matter how awesome Gary Johnson is.

 Easy E wrote:


Or don't and disrespect all those people who have fought and died to get the priviledge of voting. It is your choice.

Like me? on the former of your example, or the Marines I've had to bury? off mate for one, and for two, again never said I wasn't voting. Just considering skipping the "President" box.

One can vote, and not vote for President. Thats just one item on the ballot. There are always a mad variety of state and local offices, as well as ballot initiatives depending on your locale.

I know I'm not voting for either of those Presidential losers.

Remember, a vote for Frazzled is a vote for enlightened self interest!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Like me? on the former of your example, or the Marines I've had to bury? off mate for one, and for two, again never said I wasn't voting. Just considering skipping the "President" box.

Excellent. I'm glad to hear you will still be voting. I think it is rather important, and it sounds like you agree.

My condolences about your brothers-in-arms.