Oh lighten up you conservative white nationalist incel nutjobs. She is entitled to an opinion. You guys are such sad sad losers. Although I disagree with her, I can see her point and she has a right to make it.
I laugh at your collective ugly faces and pity your inward whiny nature. Whaaahhhh! Whaaahhh! The incels are insulted!
Precious Roy wrote:
Athlete pensions have been proposed in a number of countries and were common in the old Soviet block system. US athletes have more opportunities to cash in on their Olympics, but many Olympians are flat broke when they leave their sport and have to start life over in their 30s.
I am not at all bothered by any comparison to military benefits. My father in law received a very good pension from the Navy. He commanded supply ships in Vietnam and never even heard a gun fired in all his tours. Then, he worked a desk job in the Pentagon doing logistics. He could have gone to work in the private sector with his logistics training when he retired, but was able to use his pension to support his family while he built a business restoring vintage cars. Other than six weeks of boot camp, his time in the Navy was very cushy. Why should he get lifetime benefits for that but an athlete who takes their body to the limits day in and day out shouldn't get a dime upon retirement?
So your Father in Laws experience is the same as all retirees? What a ridiculous generalization. You honestly believe taxpayers should give Natasha and other runners who spend half their day on social media and napping the same benefits as those who served in Vietnam, those who don't see their families 6 months at a time, etc. To receive a retirement from the military you have to serve 20 years. She is 30.
If she wants benefits then organize like other sports such as the NBA and NFL. Not taxpayers fault that track and field is not popular enough to pay her what she would like to receive. Or maybe ask Hansons. I'd love to hear their opinion.
This is the story of a girl
Who cried a river and drowned the whole world
Like get over yourself she reeks of self entitlement with a side of low IQ
They can help you wrote:
Oh lighten up you conservative white nationalist incel nutjobs. She is entitled to an opinion. You guys are such sad sad losers. Although I disagree with her, I can see her point and she has a right to make it.
I laugh at your collective ugly faces and pity your inward whiny nature. Whaaahhhh! Whaaahhh! The incels are insulted!
Yes, she is entitled to her opinion, and we are entitled to ours and to criticize hers.
runnerieuwijww wrote:
My spouse is in the military. That comment is insulting. Her “sacrifice” is no where near what members and families face.
Insulting.
Get a job.
Thank you to your spouse for their service.
Thank you for your cervix.
nokidding wrote:
Disko Eric wrote:
Wow. Poster made a false claim about an athlete and only one person responding actually read what the runner wrote. All in a days work for LetsRun’s best. And Rojo doesn’t edit the post with “allegedly” that he used at least twice last week. Rojo loves drama.
I read her post. Did you? The OP did not make a false claim. She agrees "100%" that Olympians should receive Veterans benefits. She is saying that she should receive the same benefits as a Veteran because of her "sacrifice and commitment to hopefully serve her country in the Olympics". Running in the Olympics does not equal sacrifice and serving your country.
“Deserve military benefits” are the words used.
On the other hand, Natasha used the military as an smiley. Not a rule.
2600 bro wrote:
socialism agitator wrote:
Being in the military is not a sacrifice. It is a career choice.
How many veterans actually have made a "sacrifice?" Aside from the obviously casualties among the small fraction deployed... don't we as taxpayers sacrifice more than most of them by giving up large portions of our income to pay for their employment, education, and family life?
Having served three decades in the military and having on just a few occasions been subjected to indirect fire, but never direct fire, I would agree that I did not "sacrifice" much and my financial gain was sufficient enough in my opinion to compensate for any sacrifice I may have suffered. The greatest sacrifice may have been time away from family, but in my case, that time away cumulatively may not have been much more than the average corporate middle manager or executive must spend away from family traveling on business. The difference between the Olympian and the Servicemember is the commitment. The Olympian is free to walk away from sport at anytime. The Servicemember must serve until the end of a service obligation or else be subjected to legal ramifications. I do thank the taxpayers for involuntarily contributing their hard earned money to fund the many benefits that I have received, and there is no need for them to thank me for my voluntary service.
I recognize the fallacy of her position, but my speed goggles instantly forgive her.
Precious Roy wrote:
but many Olympians are flat broke when they leave their sport and have to start life over in their 30s.
I really don't understand this. If an athlete spent even, say, 3-5 hours per week preparing for life after track, they could be in great shape to move on after their athletic career ended. Volunteer for a non-profit in your field. Take on a small research project with some data crunching and writing that you can do on your own schedule. Just do something consistently that will keep you current in your field and give you a few entries for your resume.
There's no reason that someone who is finishing a 4+ year running career couldn't have an absolutely awesome grad school application or be prepared to jump into the professional world.
Civilian naivete.
Just to clear any arguments about what exactly she posted, here are the posts under discussion.
She posted this yesterday. Simply and utterly stupidity on her part.
There is a HUGE difference between "representing" our country and "serving" our country.
She went on to whine about not having a pension when she retires. Well, has she been putting aside some of her prize money or salary she gets from Hanson's toward her SEP-IRA?
I went from being a fan of hers to thinking she's got a few screws loose.
socialism agitator wrote:
nokidding wrote:
This is a joke. Sorry but an Olympian or Olympic hopeful is in no way making the same sacrifice as military. The good news is that Natosha can enlist in the Navy until she is 39 years old so she can receive those benefits when she retires from running.
Being in the military is not a sacrifice. It is a career choice.
And, if you value the opinion of Donald Trump, its the career choice of suckers.
It's funny how much anger her simile has generated as compared to Trump's comparison of his sex life to Vietnam for which he should get the Congressional Medal of Honor. Snowflakes.
runnerieuwijww wrote:
My spouse is in the military. That comment is insulting. Her “sacrifice” is no where near what members and families face.
Insulting.
Get a job.
What sacrifice? Sacrificing world peace for oil money? Sacrificing life for oil money?
One group (olympians) commits their life to representing our country in a positive way.
The other group (military and such) hasn’t fought for peace or positivity in half a century. They are pawns for big oil.
Unreal that anyone can support what our armed forces do nowadays.
CrispyChicken wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
How many veterans actually have made a "sacrifice?" Aside from the obviously casualties among the small fraction deployed... don't we as taxpayers sacrifice more than most of them by giving up large portions of our income to pay for their employment, education, and family life?
Having served three decades in the military and having on just a few occasions been subjected to indirect fire, but never direct fire, I would agree that I did not "sacrifice" much and my financial gain was sufficient enough in my opinion to compensate for any sacrifice I may have suffered. The greatest sacrifice may have been time away from family, but in my case, that time away cumulatively may not have been much more than the average corporate middle manager or executive must spend away from family traveling on business. The difference between the Olympian and the Servicemember is the commitment. The Olympian is free to walk away from sport at anytime. The Servicemember must serve until the end of a service obligation or else be subjected to legal ramifications. I do thank the taxpayers for involuntarily contributing their hard earned money to fund the many benefits that I have received, and there is no need for them to thank me for my voluntary service.
I think there's probably a discussion to be had about people who are coaxed in "volunteering" without full understanding of what it entails. There's definitely some unintentional sacrifice there.
I wasn't saying it's an easy career or not an admirable one - just have always found the framing of it in the US interesting given we are a fully volunteer force now.
Get a job, you are not that good.
macdaddy og, the wrote:
runnerieuwijww wrote:
My spouse is in the military. That comment is insulting. Her “sacrifice” is no where near what members and families face.
Insulting.
Get a job.
What sacrifice? Sacrificing world peace for oil money? Sacrificing life for oil money?
One group (olympians) commits their life to representing our country in a positive way.
The other group (military and such) hasn’t fought for peace or positivity in half a century. They are pawns for big oil.
Unreal that anyone can support what our armed forces do nowadays.
If you pay federal taxes you support what the U.S. Armed Forces do nowadays, including much disaster relief. Been there, done that. I thank you for your monetary contributions.
If you're offended about this because of "military sacrifice" maybe you should think about the lack of benefits offered in the richest country on the planet to begin with. This doesn't have to be an either/or. You're told to just honor the military and not think about endless war and what we spend on military. & that's fine but it's backwards that other workers don't get the same respect. You go to a sporting event & they honor someone from the military. They don't honor a teacher. Or a nurse. Or someone working for DPW. We have enough money to make sure T&F athletes can retire and not live in poverty. We have the money to take care of members of the military once they get home which people who say "honor the military" never seem to get upset about...
The recruiting offices are open for her to join if she wants military benefits. (I'm retired Air Force). I wanted the military benefits so I joined.
kidzavier9 wrote:
On her Instagram she posted some coach saying “Olympians deserve military benefits”
…because she’s worried she won’t have money after retiring. Am I crazy or does this seem quite self-centered and out of touch?
She’s nuts. Clearly so. She’s also fallen into the trap by her leftist views that someone else should be responsible for her future/well being. If you want to prance around a track for a living, then good on you. If it doesn’t pay for shît, then that’s also on you,