Conservatives not concerned about Vets

[darkbeaver]

RE: Conservatives not con

Lotus Lander said
"What I can't understand is why some veterans groups support the charter as these provisions for wounded armed forces members are terrible. I hope they amend it."

These would be the stupid conservative vets who are easily bought off by a little up front cash which thay would try to gamble on the stock market. Meat charts will be used to determine payouts, so much for a foot so much for a leg so much for your eyes, etc; I think it's a bad deal for the members and was very likely proposed as a cost effective way to lesson the cost of conducting protracted modern war, it's a corporate decision arrived at using corporate values by servents of CanCorp.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: Conservatives not con

How much do you want to bet this legislation was designed to lessen the cost of caring for war injuries, or is it just coincidence, maybe someone in Ottawa expects protracted operations by the armed forces in places like Afghanistan and the bean counters have found a way to save bucks on the backs of injured soldiers, the NDP wouldn't do this, but the Cons and that other bunch would.

Guess what?

This was NOT Conservative legislation.

Like it or hate it, and I've heard views on both sides from veterans, it was introduced and passed by the LIBERAL government.

Colpy I know it wasn't the Con partys legislation, I did not say it was Con party legislation, I have had no great love for the LibCon
party of Canukistan, that party is full of psycopathic corporate pricks as well.