You sort of missed the dollar mark. I think we've spent a trillion in Iraq and we got fifty cents worth of oil out of it.
You sort of missed the dollar mark. I think we've spent a trillion in Iraq and we got fifty cents worth of oil out of it.
No, it's not. That record says nothing without first doing a lot of research into what all these bills actually include. For example, you might have a bill that has some small benefit increase for veterans, and attached to it is a provision to have the government increase welfare spending by 50%. In that scenario the right answer is to vote against the bill, and either introduce another bill or vote for another bill that gets it right. Of course, the other side (make no mistake, both sides do this same thing) will scream that you didn't "support the veterans", and that's a load of crap.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Here is the summary of that bill from the library of congress.
The whole point of the bill is to pay for rebuilding Iraq, Dodd entered this amendment to take the money meant for rebuilding and use it for 'safety' equipment, whatever that means. It was obviously a political move to make Republicans vote against funding for 'safety equipment'
Nice bike. So I was out riding my bicycle yesterday on my regular 16 mile ride and I saw a biker coming up behind me so I gave a left hand salute since I saw him in my rear view mirror. He slowed down and pulled up besides me and said, "Now that's what I call biking". I gave him a thumbs up and kept going. Nice to have someone give some words of encouragement occasionally.
Yep it's funny how they can all vote for bills that include bridges to nowhere, but can't vote for veterans benefits that may include some smaller earmark. Recently it's all about whether a Democrat or Republican introduced the bill.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conehead makes an interesting point, while we may cry about the 4000 plus US troops who have died for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan, these formerly living people are now dead
and once the GI insurance is paid, they will be no further cannon fodder drain on the US treasury.
But rule of thumb, for every one that dies, ten or more will suffer lifelong disabilities that will quite properly suck money from the national treasury. I may be antiwar, but in my mind, there is nothing lower than a politicians who will encourage war, and then stand down from paying the humane cost suffered by those troops that serve. And there is something even lower about a politicians who will stand idly by and watch the civilian population of an occupied country suffer 40x or better the civilians causalities as our US troops do because they are clueless about how to run a humane military occupation.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
There was no vote to weaken troops... The vote was an (agreed lame) attempt to stop the funding so we would have to bring them home, not weaken them. It was done because George W does not listen to reason and refuses to admit he made an enormous blunder.
Let me say it again, since you seemed to glosss right over it
Let me spell it out for you clearly and simply, since you have republican colored glasses..
Trying to bring them home safely = support
Having them risk thier lives for a useless war that gains us nothing but negative one trillion dollars and all while Haliburton and other companies getting rich off of it = not support
Try, please just TRY and understand the difference. I have to believe you love this country, so do I, just think for fart sakes, THINK!!!
During a townhall meeting a war veteran asked McCain about his voting record. McCain had to really really dance around the question. He couldn't even give a reason why he voted against these bills.
McCain criticism? Must duhvert!
I'll give you a reason. He's really old and he can't remember. :laugh:
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Come on now Red, I thought you were more intelligent than that.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And that somehow makes it OK for McCain not to support disable Vets?
preslove claimed that someone was "misrepresenting" what JP had said so I set out to get the record straight.
Anyone who really believes that McCain is anti-vet is a fool. And anyone who believes that the anti-war/anti-military Democrats will do a better job of taking care of them is a fool.
And let's not forget that Jim Webb, the Democrats new pro-vet poster boy, is a life long Republican who just recently switched to the Democrat Party.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 397
Facebook
Twitter