Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

At a town hall event in Warren, Ohio yesterday, Senator John McCain boasts about a GI bill that increased educational benefits for US troops after he not only opposed the bill, but also did not show up for the vote in the Senate.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

SanAntonioRogue

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Links

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Let me try the Youtube link again...

www.youtube.com

Is it just me, or are those "senior moments" coming more frequently every day?

"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan" -Anon

"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan" -Anon

"Now how did I vote on that issue again?"
- J. McCain

"Did I vote on that issue?"
- J. McCain

"What was the issue?"
- J. McCain

Without Joe Loserman to whisper in his ear, Grampa McNasty is one clueless sonuvabitch, eh?

Wonder if McAncient can even remember wot he had fer breakfast this morning.

Of course it's not just his age enfeebled brain giving out on him it also has to do with the fact that Capatain Pancakes has flip flopped on practically every issue that exists so often that by now keeping track of wot he believed and when is a logistical nightmare.

Good eye, SanAn!

Be Well.

/Busy freakin' day tommorow. Spud is now gonna go hit the hay big time. Spud is bounce from blog-world in the proscribed manner, which is to say...
stage left.

So does this mean that McCain was for the G.I. Bill before he was against it before he was for it.


**** So does this mean that McCain was for the G.I. Bill before he was against it before he was for it.
Posted by johnny_hotsauce *****

......no.......he was against it............

....until it was time to take credit for a good bill..........

Naturally. We need to go back and read George Orwell again.....he was against it which meant he was for it. And THIS is the best the repulsicans could come up with this year???? Pitiful. What's even MORE pitiful is that this man has even the slightest chance of being our next President.

So he is either a liar or batshit senile.

Either way he is unfit to lead this great nation.

But some stupid dumbfuck like 101 will still vote for him. They are too intellectually lazy to think.

Either my comment was as funny as I thought or Skiz's sense of humor is on vacation.

i meant "was not as funny"

McCain Takes Credit for GI Bill He Opposed

This is positively Clintonian, supporting both sides of an issue, having your cake and eating it too.

What are you talking about???

McCain opposed the bill because of its pork barrel spending etc.

He DEMANDED that its education benefits BE transferable. SOURCE: online.wsj.com

You can read more about his OWN bill here: blogs.abcnews.com McCain's plan would have offered EVEN MORE benefits to soldiers based on their years of service.

Who comes up with this stuff?


*** Either my comment was as funny as I thought or Skiz's sense of humor is on vacation.
Posted by johnny_hotsauce ***

......or both.......it's Sunday......damn this beer is empty.......

Where all the Right Wingers trying to spin this, come on "ROB THE A HOLE", "VERNON", "GOATMAN", Where the fuck are you assholes??????

Hi! I'm shit my pants crazy!
Sincerely,
Celery


Hi! I'm shit my pants crazy!
Sincerely,
Celery

Now you know he didn't write that.

It's spelled correctly and grammatically correct.


Where all the Right Wingers trying to spin this, come on "ROB THE A HOLE", "VERNON", "GOATMAN", Where the fuck are you assholes??????

Case in point.

This exactly what the cocksmoker-in-chief, Richard Nixon did with the Vietnam Era GI Bill. When he could no longer stop it, he took credit for it. I still have my letter from that miserable asswipe's office on White House stationery that was enclosed with my monthly GI Bill check that arrived just before the 1972 Presidential Election, in which he thanked me for my service and hoped I would be able to use the extra income he graciously provided for me. I still voted for George McGovern.

"Who comes up with this stuff?" Democrat tools/

What McCain really said:

"I'm happy to tell you that we [meaning the Senate] probably agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them that gives them an increase in their educational benefits."

Not reported:

"McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, has introduced an alternative bill that would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. McCain argues his bill would have a smaller impact on retention rates than the legislation that the Senate passed."

Contrast that to Obama when he says "I" was for... when he didn't vote, giving credit to himself only.

VERY nice spinning KaBooMie, very nice indeed.


.......why does McCain hate our troops ?........


What are you talking about???


McCain opposed the bill because of its pork barrel spending etc.


He DEMANDED that its education benefits BE transferable. SOURCE: online.wsj.com


You can read more about his OWN bill here: blogs.abcnews.com McCain's plan would have offered EVEN MORE benefits to soldiers based on their years of service.


Who comes up with this stuff?

Posted by SomeGuy2



LOOL!!! A McCain tool!!!! I think it's the first one I've seen. Ahhh ... summer.

Does anyone find it odd that McCain doesn't think our troops should be able to go to ANY state school for free after serving in the Military?

After all, this is the same guy who only got into the Naval Academy because his daddy was an admiral. McCain felt that as long as the tax payers were paying for his education, why should he bother studying, and ended up 5th from the bottom of his class of over 800.

So, McCain got his education paid for by the taxpayers before he EVER served a day and now McCain doesn't think the troops coming back from Iraq deserve the same. What an elitist piece of shit.

It is like the first Robin of springtime.

If McCain opposed the bill for pork spending it is because it did not contain the pork he wanted.

McBush was opposed to the bill because it allowed the veterans to receive benefits much sooner than he wanted them too.

LOOL!!! A McCain tool!!!! I think it's the first one I've seen. Ahhh ... summer.

Posted by midiman

Do you laugh out out loud?

Nice attempt to rebut facts. Maybe we'll listen to you when you have SOMETHING to back up your claim.

Source please!

So he is either a liar or batshit senile.

Either way he is unfit to lead this great nation.

~726.

Spud agrees that McCuntrollop's unfit to serve but points out that "liar" and "batshit senile" are not mutually exclusive terms.

ie. He's both.

So, McCain got his education paid for by the taxpayers before he EVER served a day and now McCain doesn't think the troops coming back from Iraq deserve the same. What an elitist piece of shit.

~Commonsense.

Thread Over.

Commonsense WINS!

Be Well.

"McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, has introduced an alternative bill that would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. McCain argues his bill would have a smaller impact on retention rates than the legislation that the Senate passed."

Yep, and that bill failed. His bill failed. The one that passed, passed without him bothering to even show up for the vote. The one that passed he fought against.

McCain's an ass for now taking credit. A lying SoS.


Where all the Right Wingers trying to spin this, come on "ROB THE A HOLE", "VERNON", "GOATMAN", Where the fuck are you assholes??????

Posted by celisary at

You so crazy...

blogs.abcnews.com

Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting

From that link...

In a written statement from his Senate office -- while he never explicitly says he'll vote for it -- the Arizona Republican praises a deal between White House and Congressional negotiators for a war funding bill that includes the GI Bill, and $21 billion in non-war-related funding like a three month extension of unemployment benefits and emergency funding for Katrina and Midwest flood relief.

So the title of this thread... maybe a little misleading?

No Rob it's not Misleading. If You don't vote for something aren't You really saying You Oppose it. I mean that is the argument that is used with regards to Obama's present votes. You on the right declare that if He actually supported a bill He would vote for it and not Present or not vote He would have voted in the affirmative.

Larry Mohr

I'm trying to find a statement from him Larry on why he didn't vote for it, but from his statement 10 days ago, he clearly was not opposed to it.

Actions speak louder than words Rob. If He was not opposed to it why didn't He vote for it??

Larry Mohr

Looks like he was at Xavier for a campaign town hall meeting...

He dropped his opposition to the bill 10 days when a deal was reached on a clause allowing service members to transfer their benefits to family members... Maybe its just me, but that sounds like it improved the Bill.

McCain hasn't voted in the senate since like April and this bill passed overwhelmingly, with his support.


Actions speak louder than words Rob. If He was not opposed to it why didn't He vote for it??


Larry Mohr

Postd by LarryMohr at

Larry, if this is the line your taking then as you pointed out the same applies to Obama and neither of our presidential candidates support the troops...

And how did Obama vote??

Larry

On this one he's voted in favor of it... on other funding bills he's been a no show

No Rob it's not Misleading. If You don't vote for something aren't You really saying You Oppose it. I mean that is the argument that is used with regards to Obama's present votes. You on the right declare that if He actually supported a bill He would vote for it and not Present or not vote He would have voted in the affirmative.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How about Obama??? Sure he's missed some critical votes (he must NOT have opposed ANY of them) --- good thinking Larry!!!

McCain SPONSORED a bill that would have INCREASED soldiers' educational benefits (shhhh, Larry does NOT want you to know about this), but Larry forgot!! Nor did he find the time to research it. Nor did he find the time to read the articles I posted. Nor did he think about it. Nor did he recognize its significance. Nor did he consider this rebuttal. Too bad. Maybe next time, Larry!

I'm just glad that the Dems answered McCain's demand to MAKE these educational benefits transferable.

Best.

Trool alert Trool Alert. SomeGuy2 missed the critical part of Rob's and My "Debate". We are talking about THIS thread and headline title. Please do get a clue at WalGreens. This week buy 2 clues get 2 free. Thank You.

Larry Mohr

If He was not opposed to it why didn't He vote for it??

Larry, do you want to retract this comment now?

Trool alert Trool Alert. SomeGuy2 missed the critical part of Rob's and My "Debate". We are talking about THIS thread and headline title. Please do get a clue at WalGreens. This week buy 2 clues get 2 free. Thank You.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Reread the top posts and YOU will see that McCain DEMANDED these benefits be transferable and objected to all the pork in the bill.

You'll ALSO see that McCain's own bill WOULD have provided GREATER benefits to soldiers than this one!!! Truth hurts.

Best luck next time, Larry!!!

p.s., what bill related to educational benefits of our soldiers has OBAMA brought up??? Hint: zero. Better luck next time, Larry!!!

Trool alert Trool Alert

WTF????

We are talking about THIS thread and headline title.

So this comment only applies to this bill????

If You don't vote for something aren't You really saying You Oppose it.

What??

SomeGuy2 missed the critical part of Rob's and My "Debate". We are talking about THIS thread and headline title.

Larry in regards to politicians missing troop votes I was talking about their entire voting record, not just this thread and GI Bill...

In regards to this title, the thread is wrong. McCain had opposed this Bill, but 10 days ago he dropped that opposition and supported the Bill.

No it doesn't eberly. SomeGuy2 was trooling like He always does. The issue at hand was did McCain support or oppose the GI Bill. His nonvote is at least to me a declaration that He did not support it. Yeah He brought up His own bill but that was not part of the GI Bill. Capisce Eberly??

Larry Mohr

McCain hasn't voted in the senate since like April and this bill passed overwhelmingly, with his support.

The bill passed overwhelmingly without his support. His bill was rejected. SOME of the amendments that McCain and others supported were engrossed and voted overwhelmingly for on June 26th - the day he made his comments in Xavier. Missing from the bill was the main objection that Bush and McCain had - a sliding scale for benefits based on service. In fact, the bill that passed contained the very provision he spoke most vehemently against.

www.govtrack.us

Yes Rob He opposed the Bill when it came up for a vote now He tried to flip flop and say He supported it. Headline is NOT wrong.

Larry Mohr

The bill passed overwhelmingly without his support.

Bullshit, read the ABC news link above... or just read the part that I posted into this thread.

McCain supported the Bill.

"he tried to flip flop"

Just like you. Larry, yes, I realize what this thread is about and yes, I realize your point (you made it clear some time ago). No point in repeating the obvious. I guess I made a mistake in advancing the conversation a bit too fast for you.

I'll go wake up my 5 year old daughter and advance the coversation with her.....at least she can keep up.

Headline is NOT wrong

The headline says he opposed the Bill, McCain in reality supported the Bill. The headline is wrong.

In a written statement from his Senate office -- while he never explicitly says he'll vote for it -- the Arizona Republican praises a deal between White House and Congressional negotiators for a war funding bill that includes the GI Bill, and $21 billion in non-war-related funding like a three month extension of unemployment benefits and emergency funding for Katrina and Midwest flood relief.

Rob,

Just because he supported the bill once he knew it was going to pass doesn't change the fact he was, for most of the time, opposed.

No it doesn't eberly. SomeGuy2 was trooling like He always does. The issue at hand was did McCain support or oppose the GI Bill. His nonvote is at least to me a declaration that He did not support it. Yeah He brought up His own bill but that was not part of the GI Bill. Capisce Eberly??

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

No, Larry -- you just once again don't know what you're talking about.

IF McCain was AGAINST this bill, then why one Earth did he sponsor his OWN bill that would have provided GREATER benefits for our soldiers???

BWAHAHAHAHAHA -- Larry doesn't know the answer -- not because it's not obvious, but because that's just him!

"IF McCain was AGAINST this bill, then why one Earth did he sponsor his OWN bill that would have provided GREATER benefits for our soldiers???

Senility?

Rob,

Just because he supported the bill once he knew it was going to pass doesn't change the fact he was, for most of the time, opposed.

Posted by Danforth

Yeah, he was originally AGAINST all the pork in it. His OWN bill would have provided GREATER educational benefits to our soldiers.

Danforth + Larry = wrong again.

Just because he supported the bill once he knew it was going to pass doesn't change the fact he was, for most of the time, opposed.

Posted by Danforth

Danforth, if you read the article posted above from ABC News, you'll see that he dropped his opposition after a deal was reached to allow service members to transfer their benefits to family members... Now be honest, isn't that a good thing? Didn't that make the Bill a little better?

So he opposed it at first, then changes were made that made the Bill better, then he praised it and supported it.

Read the sources above so that we can all address reality.

Bullshit, read the ABC news link above... or just read the part that I posted into this thread.

I did read it. Then I went to the congressional record. Then I went and dug up what McCain was saying in his "town hall" meetings and press meetings. His main point in disagreement up until the 19th was the benefits would be paid out, fully, after 3 years.

He said repeatedly that that would hurt the Military. He spoke at length about the need to keep NCO's in. He cited numbers saying that there would be a drop out of 16% in retention. He ignored the same study's findings that recruitment would increase by 16%. He wanted the sliding scale out to 10 years, only 50% paid before then. He applied (in his bill) the same restriction on transferability.

So, after all his words, after an overwhelming vote, 91-6 (his still missing) he supports it.

And he takes credit?

Got it.

And he takes credit?


Got it.


Posted by YAV

He's a Senator who supported the Bill... yeah, he should be allowed to like everyone else who supported it...

Hell I'll even let old pudding head Kennedy claim credit for it even though he missed the vote too.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-29 10:48 PM

"IF McCain was AGAINST this bill, then why one Earth did he sponsor his OWN bill that would have provided GREATER benefits for our soldiers???

Senility?


Don't plead senility as your excuse, nullifidian. Plead ignorance. You seem totally unaware of how the legislative process works.

Lord the trools are out in full force tonight. Unbelievable.

Larry Mohr

trools

this is like the 50th time you've spelled it this way, so this isn't a spelling mistake. What the fuck is a trool?

He said repeatedly that that would hurt the Military. He spoke at length about the need to keep NCO's in. He cited numbers saying that there would be a drop out of 16% in retention. He ignored the same study's findings that recruitment would increase by 16%. He wanted the sliding scale out to 10 years, only 50% paid before then. He applied (in his bill) the same restriction on transferability.

YES, which is why McCain DEMANDED the benefits be transferable.

You're getting close... keep stepping in the right direction, big guy!

"IF McCain was AGAINST this bill"

What a pile of shit. If McCain WASN'T against this bill, he wouldn't have proffered one of his own. And GREATER benefits, as you've claimed? Let's check:

"Under Webb's amendment, which the Senate approved last week as part of the war supplemental budget, recent war veterans would get a four-year scholarship to any public university after a three-year deployment. It would provide enough to cover the cost of a four-year degree at the most expensive public university in any state -- about $1,700 a month, according to some news reports -- and is estimated to cost $52 billion over a decade."

"McCain said ..."one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16 percent," said McCain, referring to a recent CBO analysis. Webb and others have seized on that same report, however, noting that it projects the Webb measure would likely raise recruitment levels by 16 percent."

"McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., has offered competing legislation that would provide $1,500 a month for veterans after a three-year stint and up to $2,000 after 12 years. Their bill is estimated to cost $38 billion over 10 years. But that measure failed to get 60 votes needed for passage when it came to the Senate floor."

www.govexec.com

McCain's bill offered $38 billion in benefits. Webb's bill offered $52 billion.

Tell us again, SomeGuy2...which is GREATER?

"Don't plead senility as your excuse, nullifidian. Plead ignorance. You seem totally unaware of how the legislative process works.

Posted by Johnson"

Blow me, gasbag.

A Trool is a Troll plus tool equals a trool. It would not look quite right if I were to state troolls You have the T R from troll and ool from tool and that makes a trool.

Larry Mohr

What a pile of shit. If McCain WASN'T against this bill, he wouldn't have proffered one of his own. And GREATER benefits, as you've claimed?

Posted by DANFORTH

Danforth -- ding, ding, ding. You and Larry are no longer on the best of terms. In Larry's eyes, you're a "trool" because you recognized reality. And by reality -- I mean McCain sponsoring a bill that would have provide MORE benefits to soldiers. I think we can ALL be glad that McCain's demand that benefits be transferable was honored!!! Sounds like both of us support McCain's initiative. And that's the right outcome.

But here you go: "McCain's plan would offer more benefits to soldiers who have served longer terms." SOURCE: liberal blogs.abcnews.com

Now, I know that scares you. And I know your source distorts reality. Better luck next time!

So he opposed it at first, then changes were made that made the Bill better, then he praised it and supported it.

That doesn't change the fact his main point, the only one I heard him talk of (and talk of repeatedly) was his opposition to the 3 year deal. But I actually believe McCain's idea made sense---what good is trading 16% rookies for 16% trained men?!?---so to claim now he supported it is not only a bit disingenuous, but it undermines his original intelligent point.

So he opposed it at first, then changes were made that made the Bill better, then he praised it and supported it.

That doesn't change the fact his main point, the only one I heard him talk of (and talk of repeatedly) was his opposition to the 3 year deal. But I actually believe McCain's idea made sense---what good is trading 16% rookies for 16% trained men?!?---so to claim now he supported it is not only a bit disingenuous, but it undermines his original intelligent point.

Posted by Danforth

Are YOU disputing ABC news??? Your own liberal network doesn't support your argument. That's too bad.

Of course he wanted it to be transferable, otherwise people would have to LEAVE the military to use it. What!?!?!? Oh, so that addresses his concern and eliminates your argument.

Best of luck next time, big guy!

""McCain's plan would offer more benefits to soldiers who have served longer terms." "

So what...they would have offered lesser to folks who served the same and medium terms. Webb's bill offered GREATER benefits, $52 billion vs $38 billion.

"And I know your source distorts reality."

My "source" is math. I know that scares you. $52 is GREATER THAN $38. Better luck next time!

Exactly Danforth.

YES, which is why McCain DEMANDED the benefits be transferable.

That's hilarious. How did he "demand" it and from what position of power did he execute this "demand?"

Why'd he give up on his one big issue, the one he kept bringing up - the one that would hurt the Military the most (according to the 'before I was for it' McCain)? RETENTION?

He didn't demand it. HIs vote wouldn't have mattered. His demands - nada. Transferability was a good idea, and overwhelmingly supported by both sides. It was going to make it in no matter what.

McCain's plan would offer more benefits to soldiers who have served longer terms.

"more benefits - more strings - cost less!"

One problem. The bill as passed does it all without the McString's contingencies.

Danforth, SG2 is not interested in being honest. He simplies wants to try and score cheap partisan points through distortion and smear. I realized that yesterday. Save your breath.

Are YOU disputing ABC news??? Your own liberal network doesn't support your argument. That's too bad.

That statement is clueless on so many levels it isn't even funny.

"Of course he wanted it to be transferable"

I never heard him mention that; only the 3 year deal to which he was opposed. The 3 year deal passed.

Moder8,

Were you on Nanc's blog today?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Let's walk through this, Danforth. Yes, it's true that if you were to look at Webb's plan versus McCain's, Webb's will cost MORE in the short term. But why??? Because McCain's plan is based on years of service + transferability. So yes, I'll agree that IF every military man/woman stayed in the military for 4 years, then Webb's plan will pay more money. This is EXACTLY why McCain opposed it because McCain argued that Webb's plan would cause people to LEAVE the military. And there's clearly an incentive to do so. McCain wanted to tie GREATER benefits to longer service + transferability. To say that McCain opposed increased educational benefits is a lie.

Moder8, get over losing yesterday's debate. Seriously, just admit that Obama lied. Nevermind, you're not big enough and clearly nor is Obama.

"SG2 is not interested in being honest. He simplies wants to try and score cheap partisan points through distortion and smear."

Not honest? Heck, I'm interested in how tethered he is to reality.

SomeGuy2, what is GREATER:

$52 billion
or
$38 billion?

No. Which one is it?

I never heard him mention that; only the 3 year deal to which he was opposed. The 3 year deal passed.

Posted by Danforth

Then read the above link I posted. The bill did NOT pass until his demand for transferability was answered.

What!?!?!?!? Uh oh, that destroys Yav argument too. Best of luck next time, big guy!

SomeGuy2, what is GREATER:

$52 billion
or
$38 billion?

Posted by Danforth

Uhhhhh, do the math over a longer period of time. You're getting it!

"Webb's will cost MORE in the short term. "

You're confused: I was referring to those serving short terms (3) medium terms (6-9) or long terms (12+).

As far as cost comparisons, both are for 10 years. Webb's allows for greater benefits.

"Moder8, get over losing yesterday's debate.
...
Posted by SomeGuy2 "


Yawn. Another internet jackass that unilaterally proclaims victory. It's interesting that so many of them tend to be rightwing douchebags.

"Uhhhhh, do the math over a longer period of time."

Are you daft? How long is the $38 billion projection for McCain's plan? Ten years. How long is the $52 billion projection for Webb's plan? Ten years.

How long will it take you to admit you were wrong? Ten years.

Okay, let's break it down.

Do you believe that McCain did NOT demand the transferability? See online.wsj.com

How am I confused??? If Webb's provides MORE benefits in the short term, then of course it costs more in the short term. McCain pegs educational benefits to YEARS SERVED and provides transferability.

Are you glad that McCain's demand to provide transferability was succumbed to??

NG2 epitomizes typical dishonest right wing tactics. Smear the other guy, and then claim that he is smearing you. Whatever. Once identified it is easy to ignore bloggers like him.

Moder8,

Jackass/Messiah got caught a few days ago on Nanc's blog signing in as "danforth" from "the retort" and scumming up the place. He got caught pretty quickly and humiliated, and he showed up again on her blog today as "moder8". He's obviously changed his ip address, as he challenged Nanc to publish it, something he called her a chickenshit for the day he was posting as me. What a stupid twit.

Yawn. Another internet jackass that unilaterally proclaims victory. It's interesting that so many of them tend to be rightwing douchebags.

Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, I think all sane people agreed that Obama lied here: www.youtube.com

Keep chugging along! Choo choo!

Moder8 shouldn't that by SG2 instead of NG2 because there is a NorthGuy3 here that's top notch as far as I am concerned.

Larry

"I think all sane people"

Sorry, but I don't give a fuck about who you think are "sane" or not.

You wouldn't Nulli, because...

Try using facts to support your argument.

Show us where McCain did NOT support educational benefits + transferability. Oooops.

The bill did NOT pass until his demand for transferability was answered.

The original Webb bill passed the Senate (without transferability) on May 22nd by a 75-22 margin. You're discussing the reconciliation process with the House bill.

McCain's bill "with more benefits!" didn't even get 60 votes (Danforth can explain why that's important if you don't know).

Now you want to say McCain's provisions are responsible for this bill passing?

That's quite entertaining.

Larry, you are correct. I meant SG2.

"Try using facts to support your argument."

Why bother? Yav and Danforth are ripping you a new one. Wouldn't be fair to pile on.

"Try using facts to support your argument."

Yeah Nullifidian! Refute that YouTube video!

(damn that is one POOR editing job, BTW)

Bedtime. Y'all have fun.

"Do you believe that McCain did NOT demand the transferability?"

I don't believe, if McCain demanded the sun come up in the East, he should take the credit. Transferability was going to be a part of the final package, McCain or no. To top that off, if you actually believe McCain had any real sway in a 90+ vote victory, I suggest a remedial civics class.

"How am I confused???"

$52 is greater than $38. Your pretense it will some day, somehow reverse itself isn't backed by any numbers, just wishful thinking.

Question. Since the Republicans are in the Minority when this vote took place how could a member(John McCain) of the minority party(Republicans) Demand ANYTHING in the legislative body?? Just curious.

Larry Mohr

"You're discussing the reconciliation process with the House bill. "

Wow...

So SomeGuy2 wants us to believe Senator McCain can influence or stop legislation in the House of Representatives, all without casting a vote!

This is getting funnier by the minute.

The original Webb bill passed the Senate (without transferability) on May 22nd by a 75-22 margin. You're discussing the reconciliation process with the House bill.

McCain's bill "with more benefits!" didn't even get 60 votes (Danforth can explain why that's important if you don't know).

Now you want to say McCain's provisions are responsible for this bill passing?

That's quite entertaining.

Posted by YAV

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nope, it provides for transferability after McCain's demand. See above posted sources and this one: en.wikipedia.org

Can NO ONE find a source to support your arguments??? I thought not. Look above to find my sources.

WHOA!!! What are you talking about??? Are McCain's demand RESPONSIBLE for the bill's passing??? NOOOOOO, but his demands show that he is FOR extra educational benefits for our soldiers. Keep trying though!!!

I don't believe, if McCain demanded the sun come up in the East, he should take the credit. Transferability was going to be a part of the final package, McCain or no. To top that off, if you actually believe McCain had any real sway in a 90+ vote victory, I suggest a remedial civics class.

The great Danforth has spoken!!! LOL. Read above articles to find you're wrong. McCain DEMANDED it be incorporated and then he dropped his resistance.

Which makes sense because otherwise people would have to leave the military to take their advantages. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Question. Since the Republicans are in the Minority when this vote took place how could a member(John McCain) of the minority party(Republicans) Demand ANYTHING in the legislative body?? Just curious.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How could the majority of Dems NOT stop the Iraq War??? Because they lie to you and YOU believe them. They never intended to do such a thing, and now you cry that McCain demanded transferability and WON.

Democrats lack enough votes to get it stopped SG2. Of course a trool like You wouldn't understand that.

Larry Mohr

" McCain DEMANDED it be incorporated and then he dropped his resistance."

Senator McCain doesn't have the authority of a fart in the House of Representatives.

"Read above articles"

None of them back what you've claimed. The wiki article, for example, states
"With the added transferability provisions for continued military service, Sen. McCain has said he now supports the bill because it encourages additional service beyond three years, mitigating his earlier concerns."

Nothing about McCain DEMANDING anything, and nothing about those DEMANDS meaning anything, especially by a Senator when it comes to the goings-on of the House of Representatives.

Fuck this shit bath time. No No Bubble bath for Me. Just one swimming pool tablet will do nicely.

Larry

SG2,

Please link to any proof Senator McCain's demands had anything to do with the actual legislation in the House of Representatives.

And not just coincidental, like that sun rising in the East thingy.

"Nope, it provides for transferability after McCain's demand. "

Correlation is not causation. And Senators' demands have nothing to do with legislation in the House.

How could the majority of Dems NOT stop the Iraq War??? Because they lie to you and YOU believe them. They never intended to do such a thing, and now you cry that McCain demanded transferability and WON.

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-29 11:50 PM


There is no majority of dems. Lieberman is an independant, and he favors the unnecessary killing of innocent humans for absolutely no reason other than he is a pants pissing coward just like you.

Telling such a blatant lie and getting caught would be less harmful to his campaign than admitting he was wrong to oppose the bill and risk being called a "flip flopper". We are a nation of fucking idiots.

"There is no majority of dems."

Bob, this has been explained to them hundreds of times, they are incapable of learning or just liars.

"Democrats lack enough votes to get it stopped SG2. Of course a trool like You wouldn't understand that."

Posted by LarryMohr

What a doofus.

First Iraq; now Iran.

Should the republicans be blamed for Democratic support of escalations against Iran?

Will you be one of the doofuses claiming the Democrats were lied to by the republicans when the coming Iran war goes south?

History will repeat itself.

The Democrats as a whole are not sincere about their anti-war positions. The little guy at the bottom of the party ladder might be, but your precious leadership isn't!

"The Democrats as a whole are not sincere about their anti-war positions."

I wouldn't say that. I'd say they've been operating since attaining control with one goal and one goal only: to recapture the White House this November. They've been governing not for the good of the country...but rather for the good of the Democrats. Whatever keeps the opposition from running ads stating "he voted against the troops", or "he voted against a tax cut" has taken priority over the ole' U.S. of A.

The wiki article, for example, states
"With the added transferability provisions for continued military service, Sen. McCain has said he now supports the bill because it encourages additional service beyond three years, mitigating his earlier concerns."

Posted by Danforth

Not quite the same as "he supported the bill once he knew it was going to pass".

"I wouldn't say that."
--DANFORTH

With their support of messing around in Iran, they are showing exactly that.

From another thread:

In other words, some members of the Democratic leadershipCongress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 electionswere willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party's presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

www.newyorker.com

"Not quite the same as "he supported the bill once he knew it was going to pass"."

LoD, you're free to show how Senator McCain's "demands" did squat to legislation in the HoR any time you'd like. SG2 couldn't link to any proof...but knock yourself out.

"With their support of messing around in Iran, they are showing exactly that."

Nonsense. They're showing their desire to gain the WH is paramount, just as I stated.

It's like someone one point ahead in a Q&A game, answering every question the same as the opponent, just to assure a victory. The current Dems have no spine; we've known that for an age.

McCain SPONSORED a bill that would have INCREASED soldiers' educational benefits (shhhh, Larry does NOT want you to know about this), but Larry forgot!! Nor did he find the time to research it. Nor did he find the time to read the articles I posted. Nor did he think about it. Nor did he recognize its significance. Nor did he consider this rebuttal. Too bad. Maybe next time, Larry!

I'm just glad that the Dems answered McCain's demand to MAKE these educational benefits transferable.

Best.

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-29 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:


McCain still didn't want to have the soldiers tuition paid 100% for a STATE school.

The taxpayers can pay for McCain to go to school and goof off enough to graduate 5th from the bottom of his class of over 800, but returning troops from Iraq don't deserve to have their tuition paid in full in McCain eyes.

The repubs bill lost and Jim Webb's won.

SG2,

Please link to any proof Senator McCain's demands had anything to do with the actual legislation in the House of Representatives.

And not just coincidental, like that sun rising in the East thingy.

Posted by Danforth

I already provided it to you above. But here it is again: online.wsj.com

Here's another source: hamptonroads.com

Note it discusses it as the "White House's" demand, but McCain demanded the same as indicated in the previous source I gave you.

SG2,

That's an incomplete link. Copy & paste the salient part, where it shows McCain's demands had any sway either in a 90+ victory where he didn't vote, or a Chamber of Congress to which he doesn't belong.

"Note it discusses it as the "White House's" demand, but McCain demanded the same"

So what?!? I demanded the sun rise in the East this morning, and it did! Where do I go to claim credit? The sun would not have risen were it not for my demand!!!

You've yet to prove squat. Come back when you can.

Sure, "After an overwhelming Senate vote and the addition of a provision allowing veterans to transfer benefits to a spouse or child -- a top demand of Sen. McCain -- the opposition disappeared."

SOURCE: online.wsj.com

So, once his demand was answered (i.e., transferability), he and other Republican opposition ceased.

"Note it discusses it as the "White House's" demand, but McCain demanded the same"

So what?!? I demanded the sun rise in the East this morning, and it did! Where do I go to claim credit? The sun would not have risen were it not for my demand!!!

You've yet to prove squat. Come back when you can.

Posted by Danforth

What are you talking about??? The premise of this thread is that McCain opposed the G.I. Bill. He did along with many other Republicans UNTIL the transferability provisions were incorporated. Had McCain and others NOT demanded transferability, it would have been ABSENT from the bill. Webb and other Dems agreed to ADD that provision in.

Furthermore, McCain sponsored his OWN bill so it's silly to say that he does NOT want these types of benefits for our soldiers.

"LoD, you're free to show how Senator McCain's "demands" did squat to legislation in the HoR any time you'd like. SG2 couldn't link to any proof...but knock yourself out."

Posted by Danforth

You're free to show where I claimed McCain's demands "dis squat" to legislation in the HoR.

You're also free to take a course in reading comprehension.

"dis squat" = "did squat"

obviously...

Yeah, and what's so silly about DanForth's contention is that he believes a senator must have some effectuating impact on the legislation in order to claim support. So in his mind, if the votes were already there for passage, then all votes attained above that needed for passage, are irrelevant. Furthermore, in his mind, if something is SURE to pass, and one doesn't do a dance and sing the day of the vote, then that senator must NOT have supported it. All the while ignoring McCain's demands and his own bill.

"Nonsense. They're showing their desire to gain the WH is paramount, just as I stated.


It's like someone one point ahead in a Q&A game, answering every question the same as the opponent, just to assure a victory. The current Dems have no spine; we've known that for an age."

Posted by Danforth

I don't deny that they're trying to gain the WH at all costs.

But if they're willing to sacrifice their anti-war positions to gain the WH, by supporting escalating operations in Iran, doesn't that show that they "are not sincere about their anti-war positions"? Would you like to explain how they can be both sincerely anti-war, and willing to go ahead with the Bush administration's escalation of covert operaitons just to gain the WH?

"what's so silly about DanForth's contention is that he believes a senator must have some effectuating impact on the legislation in order to claim support. "

You were the one crowing about McCain's "demands" being met, when his main "demand"---the 3 year eligibility---wasn't met, and his BIG demand---a competing bill---was soundly defeated.

"Would you like to explain how they can be both sincerely anti-war, and willing to go ahead with the Bush administration's escalation of covert operaitons just to gain the WH?"

I already did, twice:

WH trumps. Whatever sincerity they have comes in (a distant) second.

You were the one crowing about McCain's "demands" being met, when his main "demand"---the 3 year eligibility---wasn't met, and his BIG demand---a competing bill---was soundly defeated.

Posted by Danforth

His demand on transferability WAS met. Have you not read the articles I provided you? He demanded transferability and it was then added into the bill. At that point opposition stopped. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Do you still believe that McCain opposes these types of benefits??? Particularly when he sponsored his OWN bill on this subject?

"After an overwhelming Senate vote..."

That makes it ludicrous to imagine anyone acquiesced to McCain's demands, lest the legislation go down to defeat. MIght as well jump on the victory bandwagon and claim to be a driver.

"At that point opposition stopped. "

His, not the bills. The bill was going to pass hugely, whether McCain got on the bandwagon or not.

"Do you still believe that McCain opposes these types of benefits???"

No...why do you feel the need to make that up?

And where, at long last, is your proof that $38 billion is somehow GREATER than $52 billion?

"I already did, twice:


WH trumps. Whatever sincerity they have comes in (a distant) second."
--DANFORTH

Your notion that they can help Bush fuck things up with Iran for no other reason than to win more political power and still be sincerely anti-war is pathetic, to the point that I think you just want to argue about it for no good reason.

A dictionary might help, but I doubt it:

sincere [sin-seer]
1. free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness; earnest: a sincere apology.
2. genuine; real: a sincere effort to improve; a sincere friend.
3. pure; unmixed; unadulterated.

"and still be sincerely anti-war is pathetic, to the point that I think you just want to argue about it for no good reason."

All I've