McCain blasts Barack Obama for not serving in uniform

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitchshould g in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

the question isn't "should servicemen and women get tuition benefits"

it's "should servicemen and women get more tuition benefits the longer they stay in service"

That is one of mccain's points, and I think it's a valid one. This is definitely NOT political posturing as BHO claims.

Actually that's not the question at all. The question is "at what time in the length of service should people have enough education benefits to allow them to go to college without amassing significant debt". McCain believes that the point should be somewhere around the 12 year mark. Webb believes that it should be after one enlistment.

Of course anyone with some time spent in the military knows just how disingenuous the McCain plan really is. Very very very few people stay in the military for 12 years and then get out to go back to school. If you're in for more then 2 terms you are what people refer to as a 'lifer'... ie. someone who stays in at least 20 years for a pension.

Are we really aiming our GI bill to pay for benefits for people who have stayed in 20 years? (which is extremely likely if you've stayed in for 12). Is the purpose of the GI bill to send a bunch of 40 year olds to college? Of course not, they will have families and probably wouldn't even go. McCain's bill is aiming to provide these good educational benefits to the people least likely to use them. Sorry if people who have actually been in the military don't get super excited about it.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

Why not send them blank checks every month? I support that, do you? If not then you obviously don't care as much as I do... :roll:

Hyperbolize much? Slippery slope arguments are the last bastion of a poor intellect.

It's much the same thing whether or not you wish to see it. Obamarama is trying to make claims(suggestions,hints, etc) that McCain doesn't want to spend money on the troops but that is hardly the case. He supports a different bill that may have less of an increase in benefits. All I've done is take BHO and the fringe left's "logic" and shown it for the absurdity it is by taking to it's extreme conclusion.

you're missing something, which is McCain moving in lockstep with Bush. It's pretty obvious why he's doing it and I highly disapprove.

And apparently at least 20 republicans disagree with mccain on this one.

Ah so instead of looking at what he actually does support, you only look at the fact that he didn't support Webb's just like Bush. Boy... lets use that "logic" on all the other politicians on all the other issues. :roll: Talk about "poor intellect"...

He's failing to provide more generous benefits because he wants Bush's money people. That's what's so cynical about this position, especially when you put his raving response in perspective.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
He's failing to provide more generous benefits because he wants Bush's money people. That's what's so cynical about this position, especially when you put his raving response in perspective.

McCain is taking public financing for his campaign FYI.

Also, the Pentagon is also against the Webb bill. Then there is this - NY Times

The Congressional Budget Office, in its cost analysis, estimated that the proposed improved benefits would result in a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments.

I think that is a reasonable concern at the current moment. Not saying that McCain is right or the Webb bill is right. But that is a reasonable concern and some sort of compromise could and should be reached that still gives Vets good benefits but doesn't hurt the deployment of forces.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
He's failing to provide more generous benefits because he wants Bush's money people. That's what's so cynical about this position, especially when you put his raving response in perspective.

McCain is taking public financing for his campaign FYI.

Also, the Pentagon is also against the Webb bill. Then there is this - NY Times

The Congressional Budget Office, in its cost analysis, estimated that the proposed improved benefits would result in a 16 percent drop in re-enlistments.

I think that is a reasonable concern at the current moment. Not saying that McCain is right or the Webb bill is right. But that is a reasonable concern and some sort of compromise could and should be reached that still gives Vets good benefits but doesn't hurt the deployment of forces.

The pentagon has better places to spend money apparently and everybody knows they oppose this. I guess McCain wants people to stay enlisted longer so he can stay in IRaq 200 years 🙂

And public financing is IRRELEVANT. Did you read the NYtimes article on how McCain will rely on independent groups? Who do you think funds them? The Melonscaifes of this country.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitchshould g in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

the question isn't "should servicemen and women get tuition benefits"

it's "should servicemen and women get more tuition benefits the longer they stay in service"

That is one of mccain's points, and I think it's a valid one. This is definitely NOT political posturing as BHO claims.

Now that I've researched each of the bills more closely, I have to agree with what you just wrote -- McCain isn't posturing. Each of the plans has a valid supporting argument, so it's certainly worth debating the pros and cons before blindly supporting either one. (Which I did early on in the thread, and now regret.. doh!).

Anyways, either way, I really hope our soldiers ALL end up receiving 100% of their tuition paid for. It's the least of what they truly deserve. I used the existing GI Bill and various types of military TA for each of my degrees, and they were each covered almost 90% -- so we're not too far from 100% now.

IMO, the final bill's requirements should fall somewhere between the two existing proposals -- hence the need for a decent debate on this issue.

 

[JD50]

It's too funny to watch the Reps and Dems use the exact same arguments that the other side used just 4 years ago. Actually, it's pretty damn pathetic.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitchshould g in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

the question isn't "should servicemen and women get tuition benefits"

it's "should servicemen and women get more tuition benefits the longer they stay in service"

That is one of mccain's points, and I think it's a valid one. This is definitely NOT political posturing as BHO claims.

Now that I've researched each of the bills more closely, I have to agree with what you just wrote -- McCain isn't posturing. Each of the plans has a valid supporting argument, so it's certainly worth debating the pros and cons before blindly supporting either one. (Which I did early on in the thread, and now regret.. doh!).

Anyways, either way, I really hope our soldiers ALL end up receiving 100% of their tuition paid for. It's the least of what they truly they deserve. I used the existing GI Bill and various types of military TA for each of my degrees, and they were each covered almost 90% -- so we're not too far from 100% now.

IMO, the final bill's requirements should fall somewhere between the two existing proposals -- hence the need for a decent debate on this issue.

I find it very interesting that McCain HAPPENS to mention the 16 percent impact on retention, but conveniently fails to mention the increase in recruiting that the same agency saw from this proposal.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I love how Fox news leaves out the fact that McCain was absent from the vote and refused to co-sign it when asked a while ago. McCain didn't have the balls to be there to vote no so just skipped it.

haven't looked at Hussein's voting record recently have ya.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I love how Fox news leaves out the fact that McCain was absent from the vote and refused to co-sign it when asked a while ago. McCain didn't have the balls to be there to vote no so just skipped it.

It's worse than that. McCain tried to sell our troops short with his own half assed, half hearted bill, and, in so doing pissed on every veterans organization from the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion to the more partisan VoteVets.org. It was only when the Senate shot down his inadequate, watered down bill that he realized that he was about to be embarrassed by the majority of his Republican colleagues, as well as the Democrats.

Originally posted by: lupi

haven't looked at Hussein's voting record recently have ya.

Saddam Hussein wasn't around to vote on the bill. 🙂

And if you're still jacking off with Obama's middle name, you're a brainless horse's ass. :thumbsdown:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: RichardE
I love how Fox news leaves out the fact that McCain was absent from the vote and refused to co-sign it when asked a while ago. McCain didn't have the balls to be there to vote no so just skipped it.

haven't looked at Hussein's voting record recently have ya.

I forgot that a 130 votes out of a few thousand is skipping out. Have you looked at it all? Or just the ones he voted present on?


Also, this is a little different McCain was asked repeatedly to cosign this bill before it came up. He refused to do so, so we know what his vote was going to be.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari
I guess only those that serve can speak for those in uniform.

Is that not the line Dems fed us for the 2004 election with Kerry? Or any other time a Republican who never served speaks out on military matters? I believe the term is 'ChickenHawk'.

Did John Kerry say that? If not, your point is fucking moot.

Kerry's service was a central theme in his campaign (remember "Reporting for duty?"). He went with the "Don't question my patriotism" because he served line more than once.

WTF does that have to do with McCain stating Obama can't tell him about the needs of soldiers? Again, did Kerry accuse Bush of something similar?

It's very similar. Both are using their military credentials to insulate them from attack.

However, in both cases, it was the Republicans bringing it to that level.

Not in this case. It was Obama's attack on the Senate floor of McCain's commitment to the troops that caused McCain to in turn 'blast' Obama. Link

Obama is on the Veteran's Affairs committee (IIRC) so his attack was legitimate. McCain's rebuttal was sad and pathetic. Like grandpa dismissing his grandson's opinion because of age gap.

That's ridiculous. What's sad and pathetic is that neither you nor Obama apparently chose to look into the subject before you opened your mouths. McCain did not say that those who serve should not get the benefits; just that those who serve less time should not get the same amount of benefits as those who serve longer. And since the benefits in question are specifically meant as incentives to join and stay in the military, rather than as birthday presents as you all seem to believe, it makes perfect sense that the incentives increase with the amount of time served, as they do at any other f@cking job!

Regardless, I have no doubt that if the roles were reversed and it was Obama who had actually studied the issue and was talking sense, you and half the other posters here would be all for it. And before you all respond with the usual party line bullsh@t, I should tell you that I am not a McCain supporter. In this case, Obama stooped to Hillary/Hannity/Limbaugh levels to take a cheap ugly shot for political gain without knowing the facts or even understanding the question. This disappoints me because I like him and have come to expect better from him.

 

[Vic]

My father enlisted and served 3 years in the Korean War, and got a 4 year full-ride at UW. Just like veterans of WWII and Vietnam could be eligible for.

If I understand correctly, the argument is that the veterans we send to war should have to serve 12 years to get the same benefits now?

I don't think it's stooping to any bullshit to call bullshit on that.

 

[StageLeft]

In the US, veterans by default > everyone else, regardless of what the vet says.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Harvey
And if you're still jacking off with Obama's middle name, you're a brainless horse's ass. :thumbsdown:

He does it because he thinks it irritates supporters of obama who cannot deny that his middle name is the same as saddam's last, but it makes them look exactly as you said, like anything they say if it's at the same time as referencing his middle name by default is idiotic.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari
I guess only those that serve can speak for those in uniform.

Is that not the line Dems fed us for the 2004 election with Kerry? Or any other time a Republican who never served speaks out on military matters? I believe the term is 'ChickenHawk'.

Did John Kerry say that? If not, your point is fucking moot.

Kerry's service was a central theme in his campaign (remember "Reporting for duty?"). He went with the "Don't question my patriotism" because he served line more than once.

WTF does that have to do with McCain stating Obama can't tell him about the needs of soldiers? Again, did Kerry accuse Bush of something similar?

It's very similar. Both are using their military credentials to insulate them from attack.

However, in both cases, it was the Republicans bringing it to that level.

Not in this case. It was Obama's attack on the Senate floor of McCain's commitment to the troops that caused McCain to in turn 'blast' Obama. Link

Obama is on the Veteran's Affairs committee (IIRC) so his attack was legitimate. McCain's rebuttal was sad and pathetic. Like grandpa dismissing his grandson's opinion because of age gap.

That's ridiculous. What's sad and pathetic is that neither you nor Obama apparently chose to look into the subject before you opened your mouths. McCain did not say that those who serve should not get the benefits; just that those who serve less time should not get the same amount of benefits as those who serve longer. And since the benefits in question are specifically meant as incentives to join and stay in the military, rather than as birthday presents as you all seem to believe, it makes perfect sense that the incentives increase with the amount of time served, as they do at any other f@cking job!

Regardless, I have no doubt that if the roles were reversed and it was Obama who had actually studied the issue and was talking sense, you and half the other posters here would be all for it. And before you all respond with the usual party line bullsh@t, I should tell you that I am not a McCain supporter. In this case, Obama stooped to Hillary/Hannity/Limbaugh levels to take a cheap ugly shot for political gain without knowing the facts or even understanding the question. This disappoints me because I like him and have come to expect better from him.

I'm pretty sure the reason McCain flaked off this vote was because he had his own he was trying to put through, which gave less benefits. With that hanging there, voting yes on this bill would have been the same as backing off and admitting he was wrong.

Of course you Mr.Well informed poster know this right?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JD50
It's too funny to watch the Reps and Dems use the exact same arguments that the other side used just 4 years ago. Actually, it's pretty damn pathetic.

😀

 

[sprok]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitchshould g in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

the question isn't "should servicemen and women get tuition benefits"

it's "should servicemen and women get more tuition benefits the longer they stay in service"

That is one of mccain's points, and I think it's a valid one. This is definitely NOT political posturing as BHO claims.

Now that I've researched each of the bills more closely, I have to agree with what you just wrote -- McCain isn't posturing. Each of the plans has a valid supporting argument, so it's certainly worth debating the pros and cons before blindly supporting either one. (Which I did early on in the thread, and now regret.. doh!).

Anyways, either way, I really hope our soldiers ALL end up receiving 100% of their tuition paid for. It's the least of what they truly they deserve. I used the existing GI Bill and various types of military TA for each of my degrees, and they were each covered almost 90% -- so we're not too far from 100% now.

IMO, the final bill's requirements should fall somewhere between the two existing proposals -- hence the need for a decent debate on this issue.

I find it very interesting that McCain HAPPENS to mention the 16 percent impact on retention, but conveniently fails to mention the increase in recruiting that the same agency saw from this proposal.

I'm guessing the 16% would be the cream of the crop officer material recruits that would be affected by this bill.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

Why not send them blank checks every month? I support that, do you? If not then you obviously don't care as much as I do... :roll:

Hyperbolize much? Slippery slope arguments are the last bastion of a poor intellect.

It's much the same thing whether or not you wish to see it. Obamarama is trying to make claims(suggestions,hints, etc) that McCain doesn't want to spend money on the troops but that is hardly the case. He supports a different bill that may have less of an increase in benefits. All I've done is take BHO and the fringe left's "logic" and shown it for the absurdity it is by taking to it's extreme conclusion.

you're missing something, which is McCain moving in lockstep with Bush. It's pretty obvious why he's doing it and I highly disapprove.

And apparently at least 20 republicans disagree with mccain on this one.

I'm going to have to disagree with CADGuy here, which is unusual. Maybe I just don't understand the two bills, but it seems like McCain is willing to sell veterans short in order to finance his campaign. 🙁

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Obama should claim that he has killed fewer of his fellow Americans than John McCain has...and slip in some USS Forrestal stats...

Obama also killed fewer Vietnamese though. I really don't think he has what it takes to kill enough people to win the war on terror.

I don't know if he does or doesn't, but you DO realize that McCain only spent 20 hours in combat flying...right? For those 20 hours, he "earned" 28 medals and commendations...(not bad for an admiral's son...right?)

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitch should in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

Damn...is there a blue moon out there? PH and I agree AGAIN! 😉

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Obama should claim that he has killed fewer of his fellow Americans than John McCain has...and slip in some USS Forrestal stats...

Obama also killed fewer Vietnamese though. I really don't think he has what it takes to kill enough people to win the war on terror.

I don't know if he does or doesn't, but you DO realize that McCain only spent 20 hours in combat flying...right? For those 20 hours, he "earned" 28 medals and commendations...(not bad for an admiral's son...right?)

Were you a Republican in 2004? You sure sound like a 2004 Republican...😛

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitch should in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

I agree 100 percent.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sprok

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitchshould g in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

the question isn't "should servicemen and women get tuition benefits"

it's "should servicemen and women get more tuition benefits the longer they stay in service"

That is one of mccain's points, and I think it's a valid one. This is definitely NOT political posturing as BHO claims.

Now that I've researched each of the bills more closely, I have to agree with what you just wrote -- McCain isn't posturing. Each of the plans has a valid supporting argument, so it's certainly worth debating the pros and cons before blindly supporting either one. (Which I did early on in the thread, and now regret.. doh!).

Anyways, either way, I really hope our soldiers ALL end up receiving 100% of their tuition paid for. It's the least of what they truly they deserve. I used the existing GI Bill and various types of military TA for each of my degrees, and they were each covered almost 90% -- so we're not too far from 100% now.

IMO, the final bill's requirements should fall somewhere between the two existing proposals -- hence the need for a decent debate on this issue.

I find it very interesting that McCain HAPPENS to mention the 16 percent impact on retention, but conveniently fails to mention the increase in recruiting that the same agency saw from this proposal.

I'm guessing the 16% would be the cream of the crop officer material recruits that would be affected by this bill.

Trust me, those 16% are my type. We'd get out anyway.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Obama should claim that he has killed fewer of his fellow Americans than John McCain has...and slip in some USS Forrestal stats...

Obama also killed fewer Vietnamese though. I really don't think he has what it takes to kill enough people to win the war on terror.

I don't know if he does or doesn't, but you DO realize that McCain only spent 20 hours in combat flying...right? For those 20 hours, he "earned" 28 medals and commendations...(not bad for an admiral's son...right?)

Were you a Republican in 2004? You sure sound like a 2004 Republican...😛

Nah, sorry...I've always been a loyal American...NEVER a Republican.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitch should in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

I agree 100 percent.

I'm with you as well. They put their time and life on the line for us, it's the right thing to do to offer them a chance at a stable life. When it comes down to looking for a job, an applicable college degree combined with military service is a lot better start than just applying with military experience (much of which may not apply at all towards the position they are looking for).