Support the troops....do they????? Really?????

[Hossenfeffer]

I must confess that I haven't followed the link.... yet.

For me, an immediate red flag shot up as soon as I saw "report card". The sad fact is that a voting record can be construed so many damnable ways, you can make a saint look like the worst sinner.

As a result I'm very careful (or attempt to be) in finding out the context of different votes. It's not, as either side would claim, a "cut and dry"/"white and black" issue. Look to the real content of particular bills as well as extenuating circumstances...



edit: ok, I've now followed the report card link. Still leaves an odd taste in my mouth, because it is arguably misleading. I'd agree that it's basically a report card on the voting records on issues that IAVA supports or not. That's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on how you feel about IAVA, but it still doesn't give enough information, in my opinion.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is a great link. link
Randi Rhodes of Air American appearing at an operation truth event.
Operation Truth was the former name of this group.
Nice picture of her giving the founder of this group a big hug.
Don't know what other kind of proof you need to show that this is just front group for Democratic causes.
The guy who founded looks to be following the Kerry course to politics.

Ok, I've followed that link.

How exactly is this a "great link"?

 

[palehorse]

oh come on... are some of you taking that report card seriously? for real?!

wow. Hitler himself could have sponsored the website and you'd STILL claim it as truth as long as it shows your chosen side as "better"... amazing.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree----if you are going to be strong on the military---you are a giant hypocrite if you are not strong on seeing those troops that get killed or wounded are helped.

If the democrats score higher---thats not bias---thats fact---when it comes time to vote the money for the VA hospitals we are going to need to keep the war mongers
in business---when it comes time to vote the money to armor humvees---you either stand up and be counted---or you wimp out.

Now if anyone wants to show this is not objective---they had better start citing bills where a vote against the IAVA stance was voting for the interests of our troops.
And exactly why. ---not that it MIGHT have some vague kill puppies or rape boys rider attached to it.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
OK... This is where I call bullshit. Not ONE Democrat got an F.

Every single F grade was handed out to Republicans only. I don't know who this group is but to say that there are no Dems who are aren't supporting our troops is insane. This is obviously a biased, left leaning group.

So what's wrong with the method?

To calculate the Ratings, IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. For each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families, IAVA took a position either in support of, or in opposition to its passage. The letter grades were derived, using the scales below, from the percentage of times that each legislator's vote matched the official IAVA stance.

There isn't a "method." This is a grade based on the number of times a rep voted in a way that IAVA approved or disapproved of. Their bias is the basis for the grade.

So what bias should be the basis for the grade? Throwing money at defense contractors to make the next space laser? Maybe IAVA thinks that isn't as important for the troops as money or medical support.

See ProfJohn's post. It's an anti-war group.

Ok, so what does the fact that those Dems voted to provide medical support to troops have to do with the site being "anti-war"?

The votes of the congressmen are on the record...Why don't you look at the votes/bills and actually compare them yourself rather than automatically dismissing something that is from the "anti-war" camp?

D-Rep. Steny Hoyer
http://capwiz.com/iava/bio/keyvotes/?id=293&lvl=C
vs.
R-Rep. Patrick McHenry
http://capwiz.com/iava/bio/keyvotes/?id=132688&lvl=C

Good to see Republicans voting AGAINST Healthcare for Reservists.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Lemon lawNow if anyone wants to show this is not objective---they had better start citing bills where a vote against the IAVA stance was voting for the interests of our troops.
And exactly why. ---not that it MIGHT have some vague kill puppies or rape boys rider attached to it.

I would like the people dismissing the grades to answer this question and cite an example.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
oh come on... are some of you taking that report card seriously? for real?!

wow. Hitler himself could have sponsored the website and you'd STILL claim it as truth as long as it shows your chosen side as "better"... amazing.

I had a similar reaction to your reaction to Kerry's botched "joke".

 

[Lemon law]

To Hossenfeffer,--------who posits--wow. Hitler himself could have sponsored the website and you'd STILL claim it as truth as long as it shows your chosen side as "better"... amazing.

And if Hitler had bad mouthed the web site you then would consider it truth?

Something is true or not true---based on itself---and not on who salutes or condemns it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Let me illustrate the point of us from the right in as clear of terms as can possibly be done.

The American Conservatives Union ranks George Allen and Conrad Burns as the "Best and the Brightest" in the Senate.
And they rank Edward Kennedy and Richard Durbin as among the "Worst of the Worst"

Now to paraphrase Termagant, who cares about their motives, do you question their methodology?

Some how I get the feeling that a lot of you are going to disagree with the idea that Allen and Burns are among the best Senators in the country. Just like we disagree with this website?s idea that nearly every Republican deserves a D or F on Vet issues.

This group has no semblance of reality. If they were any where near close then how do you explain that EVERY major Vet group in American (VFW, American Legion etc) leans towards the Republicans?

Oh yea... I forgot, some of you still believe that anyone in the military is either a dupe, or stupid... explains that... never mind :roll:

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Does this site put the emphasis on medical and financial support for troops?

A lot of the "support the troops" Republicans get that name by voting on defense appropriations bills that basically buy big equipment not affecting any current soldiers. So maybe they should be called "support the defense contractors" Congressmen.

This should pretty much shut up the naysayers in this thread.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
OK... This is where I call bullshit. Not ONE Democrat got an F.

Every single F grade was handed out to Republicans only. I don't know who this group is but to say that there are no Dems who are aren't supporting our troops is insane. This is obviously a biased, left leaning group.

So what's wrong with the method?

To calculate the Ratings, IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. For each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families, IAVA took a position either in support of, or in opposition to its passage. The letter grades were derived, using the scales below, from the percentage of times that each legislator's vote matched the official IAVA stance.

There isn't a "method." This is a grade based on the number of times a rep voted in a way that IAVA approved or disapproved of. Their bias is the basis for the grade.

So what bias should be the basis for the grade? Throwing money at defense contractors to make the next space laser? Maybe IAVA thinks that isn't as important for the troops as money or medical support.

See ProfJohn's post. It's an anti-war group.

...go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better...:roll:

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Hossenfeffer,--------who posits--wow. Hitler himself could have sponsored the website and you'd STILL claim it as truth as long as it shows your chosen side as "better"... amazing.

And if Hitler had bad mouthed the web site you then would consider it truth?

Something is true or not true---based on itself---and not on who salutes or condemns it.

Psst. I didn't say that, palehorse did.

And, I guess, to clarify, my reaction (to palehorse's reaction yesterday) was more the "oh come on... are some of you taking that report card seriously? for real?!" than the Hitler bit, which, I confess, I didn't even really read.

 

[HombrePequeno]

It's funny because the only congressman representing me that got a poor score was a Republican. The two Democrats got an A-. That's not saying I care for either of the Democrats (they're both bitches).

 

[judasmachine]

Thornberry (R-13th District TX) gets a C, many around here would be interested in seeing this, I think I'll send them the link.