Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:12 AM
28 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,808 Year: 8,844/19,786 Month: 1,266/2,119 Week: 26/576 Day: 26/50 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   The world has turned upside down!!! (Re: McCain vs. Obama for President)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 210 (470008)
06-08-2008 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
06-08-2008 12:01 PM


Re: Changing of the guard
NJ writes:

I am, however, now slightly leaning toward a libertarian who found a way to cast a third party candidacy named Bob Barr.

I've been listening to Glen Beck's interviews with Bob Bar. I'm heavily considering him as my pick. Friday he interviewed him for the full hour. It's likely on UTube.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-08-2008 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 6:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 210 (470014)
06-08-2008 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Grizz
06-07-2008 6:47 PM


Grizz responds to me:

quote:
You might want to actually look at the bills and voting records and not just repeat what you read on CNN.

(*chuckle*)

CNN? Why makes you think I'd be pulling from a conservative news channel like CNN? Yes, that's what I said. Conservative. There is no liberal media. Look who their commentators are. Glenn Beck. Lou Dobbs. Wolf Blitzer. Where are the liberals?

quote:
You are discussing packed Bills.

Typical conservative hogwash. Just what do you mean by "packed bills"? Be specific.

Take, for example, the Thune Amendment (Senate Amendment 3704 to House 4939). From the Senate's web site:

Statement of Purpose: To provide, with an offset, $20,000,000 for the Department of Veterans Affairs for Medical Facilities.

SA 3704. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

MEDICAL FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

SEC. 7032. (a) Availability of Amount.--There is appropriated for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Veterans Health Administration for Medical Facilities, $20,000,000, with the entire amount designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

(b) Offset.--The amount appropriated by chapter 7 of title II of this Act under the heading ``National and Community Service Programs, Operating Expenses'' is hereby reduced by $20,000,000.

That's it. That's the entire amendment. Provide $20M to the VA to improve the medical facilities, the money to be paid for from the National Community Service Programs, Operating Expenses."

He voted against it, 5/4/06.

Where is the "packed bill" you're talking about?

Then there's the Akaka Amendment (Senate Amendment 3642 to HR 4939). From the Senate's web site:

Statement of Purpose: To provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

SA 3642. Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dayton, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Obama, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Biden, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 128, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

MEDICAL SERVICES

For an additional amount for ``Medical Services'' for necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by law, outpatient and inpatient care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans as described in paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction of the department and including medical supplies and equipment and salaries and expenses of healthcare employees hired under title 38, United States Code, and to aid State homes as authorized under section 1741 of title 38, United States Code, $430,000,000 plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the amount under this heading, $168,000,000 shall be available to address the needs of servicemembers in need of mental health care, including post-traumatic stress disorder: Provided further, That of the amount under this heading, $80,000,000 shall be available for the provision of readjustment counseling under section 1712A of title 38, United States Code (commonly referred to as ``Vet Centers''): Provided further, That of the amount under this heading $182,000,000 shall be available to meet current and pending care and treatment requirements: Provided further, That the amount under this heading shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That the amount provided under this heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

Again, that's it. That's the entire text. Provide $430M to the VA for various uses including $168M for PTSD, $80M for counseling at Vet Centers, and $182M to add to the fund to provide care for all vets.

He voted against it, 4/26/06. One of only 13 Senators to do so.

Where is the "packed bill" you're talking about?

And again, another Akaka Amendment (Senate Amendment 3007 to Senate Concurrent Resolution 83):

Statement of Purpose: To increase Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

SA 3007. Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Obama, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Jeffords) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 83, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 and 2008 through 2011; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $135,000,000.

On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $6,000,000.

On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.

On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $135,000,000.

On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $6,000,000.

On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.

On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.

On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $135,000,000.

On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $6,000,000.

On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.

On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.

On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $135,000,000.

On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $6,000,000.

On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.

On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.

That's it. That's the entire text. Note, McCain voted FOR SCR 83. He just didn't want to increase the funding for the VA.

He voted against it, 3/14/06.

Where is this "packed bill" you're talking about?

And he did it previously to the Nelson Amendment: Senate Amendment 2745 to Senate Concurrent Resolution 95:

Statement of Purpose: To create a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.

SA 2745. Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. CORZINE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. NELSON of Nebraska) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 95, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009; as follows:

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $1,620,000,000.

[Page: S2569] On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $162,000,000.

On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $7,000,000.

On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $1,620,000,000.

On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $162,000,000.

On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $7,000,000.

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,620,000,000.

On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $162,000,000.

On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $7,000,000.

On page 4, line 23, increase the amount, by $2,000,000.

On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,620,000,000.

On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,782,000,000.

On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,789,000,000.

On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.

On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.

On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,620,000,000.

On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,782,000,000.

On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,789,000,000.

On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.

On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.

At the end of Title III, insert the following:

SEC. . RESERVE FUND FOR VETERANS' MEDICAL CARE.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution by up to $1,800,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report that provides additional fiscal year 2005 discretionary appropriations, in excess of levels provided in this resolution, for veterans' medical programs, included in this resolution for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

That's it. That's the entire text of the amendment. Note, McCain voted FOR SCR 95. He just didn't want to increase the funding for the VA.

He voted against it, 3/10/04. One of only 13 Senators to do so.

Where is the "packed bill" you're talking about?

Here's the Webb Amendment, Senate Amendment 2909 to Senate Amendment 2011 to House Bill 1585:

Statement of Purpose: To specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

SA 2909. Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SMITH, Mr. OBAMA, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. BYRD, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. DODD, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. CARPER, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for Mr. LEVIN) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1031. MINIMUM PERIODS BETWEEN DEPLOYMENT FOR UNITS AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED FOR OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Congress expresses its grateful thanks to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States for having served their country with great distinction under enormously difficult circumstances since September 11, 2001.

(2) The all-volunteer force of the Armed Forces of the United States is bearing a disproportionate share of national wartime sacrifice, and, as stewards of this national treasure, Congress must not place that force at unacceptable risk.

(3) The men and women members of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families are under enormous strain from multiple, extended combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

(4) Extended, high-tempo deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have adversely affected the readiness of non-deployed Army and Marine Corps units, thereby jeopardizing their capability to respond quickly and effectively to other crises or contingencies in the world, and complicating the all-volunteer policy of recruitment, as well as the retention, of career military personnel.

(5) Optimal time between operational deployments, commonly described as ``dwell time'', is critically important to allow members of the Armed Forces to readjust from combat operations, bond with families and friends, generate more predictable operational tempos, and provide sufficient time for units to retrain, reconstitute, and assimilate new members.

(6) It is the goal of the Armed Forces of the United States to achieve an optimal minimum period between the previous deployment of a unit or member of a regular component of the Armed Forces and a subsequent deployment of such a unit or member that is equal to or longer than twice the period of such previous deployment, commonly described as a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio.

(7) It is the goal of the Department of Defense that units and members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces of the United States should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, and that a period of five years should elapse between the previous deployment of such a unit or member and a subsequent deployment of such unit or member.

(8) In support of continuous operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other contested areas, the Army has been required to deploy units and members to Iraq for 15 months with a 12-month dwell-time period between deployments, resulting in a less than 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio.

(9) In support of continuous operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other contested areas, the Marine Corps currently is deploying units and members to Iraq for approximately seven months, with a seven-month dwell-time period between deployments, but it is not unusual for selected units and members of the Marine Corps to be deployed with less than a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio.

(10) In support of continuous operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other contested areas, the Department of Defense has relied upon the reserve components of the Armed Forces of the United States to a degree that is unprecedented in the history of the all-volunteer force. Units and members of the reserve components are frequently mobilized and deployed for periods beyond the stated goals of the Department.

(11) The Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq recently testified to Congress that he would like Soldiers, Marines, and other forces have more time with their families between deployments, a reflection of his awareness of the stress and strain placed on United States ground forces, in particular, and on other high-demand, low-density assets, by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(b) Minimum Period for Units and Members of the Regular Components.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--No unit or member of the Armed Forces specified in paragraph (3) may be deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan)) unless the period between the deployment of the unit or member is equal to or longer than the period of such previous deployment.

(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OPTIMAL MINIMUM PERIOD BETWEEN DEPLOYMENTS.--It is the sense of Congress that the optimal minimum period between the previous deployment of a unit or member of the Armed Forces specified in paragraph (3) to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and a subsequent deployment of the unit or member to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom should be equal to or longer than twice the period of such previous deployment.

(3) COVERED UNITS AND MEMBERS.--The units and members of the Armed Forces specified in this paragraph are as follows:

(A) Units and members of the regular Army.

(B) Units and members of the regular Marine Corps.

(C) Units and members of the regular Navy.

(D) Units and members of the regular Air Force.

(E) Units and members of the regular Coast Guard.

(c) Minimum Period for Units and Members of the Reserve Components.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--No unit or member of the Armed Forces specified in paragraph (3) may be deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan)) if the unit or member has been deployed at any time within the three years preceding the date of the deployment covered by this subsection.

(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MOBILIZATION AND OPTIMAL MINIMUM PERIOD BETWEEN DEPLOYMENTS.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(A) the units and members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year; and

(B) the optimal minimum period between the previous deployment of a unit or member of the Armed Forces specified in paragraph (3) to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and a subsequent deployment of the unit or member to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom should be five years.

(3) COVERED UNITS AND MEMBERS.--The units and members of the Armed Forces specified in this paragraph are as follows:

(A) Units and members of the Army Reserve.

(B) Units and members of the Army National Guard.

(C) Units and members of the Marine Corps Reserve.

(D) Units and members of the Navy Reserve.

(E) Units and members of the Air Force Reserve.

(F) Units and members of the Air National Guard.

(G) Units and members of the Coast Guard Reserve.

[Page: S11760] (d) Inapplicability to Special Operations Forces.--The limitations in subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply with respect to forces that are considered special operations forces for purposes of section 167(i) of title 10, United States Code.

(e) Waiver by the President.--The President may waive the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) with respect to the deployment of a unit or member of the Armed Forces specified in such subsection if the President certifies to Congress that the deployment of the unit or member is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests of the United States.

(f) Waiver by Miliary Chief of Staff or Commandant for Voluntary Mobilizations.--

(1) ARMY.--With respect to the deployment of a member of the Army who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the Chief of Staff of the Army (or the designee of the Chief of Staff of the Army).

(2) NAVY.--With respect to the deployment of a member of the Navy who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the Chief of Naval Operations (or the designee of the Chief of Naval Operations).

(3) MARINE CORPS.--With respect to the deployment of a member of the Marine Corps who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (or the designee of the Commandant of the Marine Corps).

(4) AIR FORCE.--With respect to the deployment of a member of the Air Force who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (or the designee of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force).

(5) COAST GUARD.--With respect to the deployment of a member of the Coast Guard who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the Commandant of the Coast Guard (or the designee of the Commandant of the Coast Guard).

(g) Effective Date.--In order to afford the Department of Defense sufficient time to plan and organize the implementation of the provisions of this section, the provisions of this section shall go into effect 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

That's it. That's the entire text. Extend the leave given to units coming back from Iraq, including provisions that they can be waived by the President or Chief of Staff. Note, while McCain voted against the amendment, 9/19/2007, he skipped the vote on SAmdt 2011 which overwhelmingly passed, 89-6.

Where is the "packed bill" you're talking about?

Do I need to go on? Do I need to provide you the exact text of every single bill McCain has ever voted for in order for you to start paying attention to the fact that McCain is not the Servicemember's friend?

What about his vote to table Senate Amendment 1817 that would have provided $322M in safety equipment?

Statement of Purpose: To provide an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

SA 1817. Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. CORZINE) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 2, line 20, strike ``$24,946,464,000:'' and insert ``$25,268,464,000, of which $322,000,000 shall be available to provide safety equipment through the Rapid Fielding Initiative and the Iraqi Battlefield Clearance program:''.

On page 25, line 10, strike ``$5,136,000,000'' and insert ``$4,884,000,000''.

On page 25, line 16, strike ``$353,000,000'' and insert ``$283,000,000''.

He voted to table the amendment, 10/2/2003.

Is that a "packed bill"?

Why do I know this stuff but you don't? You say you trust him, but you haven't done one lick of research into his voting record, have you?

Now, Obama isn't perfect. On the $20M supplement, Obama voted against it, too. But, he voted for the $430M increase to the VA as well as the $1.5B increase and the increased rest time.

quote:
If one wants to fish, it is easy to listen to partisan soundbites that equate one line-item in a bill with the bill itself.

Except that isn't what's going on. These are individual line items, specific amendments of individual things that McCain voted against to a bill that he voted for.

Why do you not know this? Why did you simply assume that I was plying the Republican trick of confusing every vote on a bill with independent votes, with votes on amendments as votes on the bill? That's what conservatives do, Grizz.

Not me.

Hie thee to the Senate web site and actually look up McCain's voting record.

And by the by: The Washington Post? You actually trust them? That's a lovely little database they provided of votes, but it doesn't actually say anything other than X voted Y on bill/amendment/resolution Z. You're the one claiming that some sort of shenannigans is going on claiming that he was voting against a "packed bill." That database doesn't provide you the text of the bill for you to be able to say that it was "packed" or not nor does it even provide a link to the actual text for you to find out.

And regarding your VA Watchdog site, didn't you read your own source?

McCAIN AND REPUBLICANS OFFER THEIR VERSION OF A NEW G.I. BILL -- McCain's version called a "pale shadow" of new G.I. Bill offered by Sen. Jim Webb.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of McCain. But let's go further (McCAIN PROMISE WOULD DISMANTLE VA AND PRIVATIZE VETERANS' HEALTHCARE -- "I'm going to get every one of our veterans a plastic card to take to their doctor or healthcare provider to get the care they need.":

Up to now, Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have steered away from controversy when it comes to veterans' issues.

That all changed when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised healthcare cards to all veterans to use where they wish. McCain said: "I'm going to get every one of our veterans a plastic card to take to their doctor or healthcare provider to get the care they need."

We only have to look at a little bit of history to see where this would go.

Military retirees were told they would get lifetime healthcare at military hospitals. As bases (and the hospitals) were closed, retirees found themselves with a "plastic card" that says TRICARE on it.

So retirees have found themselves stuck in a HMO. Many pay outrageous deductibles and co-pays. And, because TRICARE reimbursement is tied to Medicare reimbursement, many TRICARE card holders have a difficult time finding doctors and hospitals that will accept their "plastic card."

If McCain's promise becomes a reality we would see the doors to VA hospitals and clinics closed...and, once closed, they would never be reopened, just like the military hospitals.

If McCain's promise becomes a reality we would see veterans scrambling from doctor to hospital trying to find someone who would take their "plastic card" on the expectation of low reimbursement and slow reimbursement.

And, if McCain's promise becomes a reality we can expect to see veterans paying to belong to this "VA HMO."

Let us hope that Sen. McCain rethinks his position on veterans' healthcare. If he doesn't...we can expect a veterans' healthcare disaster of epic proportions.

Did you bother to read your own source?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Grizz, posted 06-07-2008 6:47 PM Grizz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Grizz, posted 06-09-2008 7:17 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 210 (470019)
06-08-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
06-08-2008 5:20 PM


randman writes:

quote:
McCain was dead-on accurate in his criticisms of Bush and Rumsfeld's strategy.

Huh? McCain never called for Rumsfeld to step down nor did he ever criticize Bush's strategy. In a statement made to Fox News on 11/8/2006, literally hours before Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation:

SMITH: The people have said that, in large part, coast to coast, state to state, district to district, this is about the war. What sort of changes are possible in the immediate hours and the days ahead? Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?

McCAIN: Well, I've said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that's a decision to be made by the president.

Where is the call for his resignation?

This "had no confidence" comment McCain made was in reference to a December 2004 interview with the AP. Pressing McCain to give more details:

McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hour-long interview Monday, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush "can have the team that he wants around him."

And regarding Bush's strategy, this is McCain from 1/12/2007, according to the AP:

Sen. John McCain defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers questioning the wisdom of the military build up.

"I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008.

Where is the criticism of Bush's methods?

Then there's this July 2007 piece from USA Today:

McCain will repeat his support for Bush's Iraq policy: "Beginning a critical campaign trip to New Hampshire today, Republican Sen. John McCain will reiterate his support for the Bush administration's continuing war in Iraq while questioning the Iraqi government's commitment to ending the sectarian violence. 'Defeatism will not buy peace in our time,' McCain will say, according to excerpts of a scheduled speech to a business luncheon provided to UnionLeader.com last night. 'It will only lead to more bloodshed -- and to more American casualties in the future. If we choose to lose in Iraq, our enemies will hit us harder in Afghanistan hoping to erode our political will and encourage calls in Western capitals for withdrawal and accommodation with our enemy there as well.' "

And have you forgotten McCain's Senate Resolution 70?

Title: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq.

In other words, "Stay the course."

Where is the criticism of Bush's methods?

quote:
Nevertheless, he continually argued for a change of strategy, from day one.

Incorrect. He was behind Bush from Day One. He's on the record as saying that he's been Bush's biggest supporter, more than anyone else.

quote:
Even if civil war breaks out

What do you mean, "if"? There's been a civil war in Iraq going on the past four+ years.

quote:
He's a realist.

"Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran!"

Yeah...that's a "realistic" row to hoe.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 06-08-2008 5:20 PM randman has not yet responded

    
BMG
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 356
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 34 of 210 (470039)
06-09-2008 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
06-08-2008 5:28 PM


Who labelled Bush as a fiscal conservative?

I don't know, which is why I prefaced the statement with, "I could be wrong".

About the only area he is not is the military, but if we can stabalize Iraq so we can withdraw or leave some bases WITHOUT COMBAT operations, I don't think McCain will increase the military.

Perhaps McCain is a fiscal conservative, but how long will it take and how much will it cost until "we can stabilize Iraq so we can withdraw"? So far, the war has cost the U.S. economy roughly $3 trillion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Criticisms_and_costs

Where's the line that divides who is a fiscal conservative and who isn't? Who decides where the line should be drawn? My intuition, which is weak and insubstantial, is that he will probably reduce spending in certain areas, such as public services, and increase spending for the military, similar to the current president. But, again, this is purely intuitive from a certain non-expert on the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 06-08-2008 5:28 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:47 PM BMG has not yet responded

    
BMG
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 356
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 35 of 210 (470046)
06-09-2008 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Grizz
06-08-2008 7:02 PM


The truth is, we haven't the slightest idea what the average Iraqi really thinks.

Which, if true, disturbs me to a certain extent. Probably the most important issue regarding Iraq, to me, is "what do the Iraqi people think about the current U.S. presence? their Iraqi government? the violence amongst and between different Iraqi's? etc. It seems like what Iraqi's think takes a backseat to American interests.

We are limited to forming our opinions based on a few minutes worth of selective news bits on CNN or Fox News.

Some are, probably most, but there are more sources than just CNN or Fox News: EVC, for example. :)

It seems rational to conclude that the Iraqi government has to take control of the situation before a full departure takes place.

When can we conclude the Iraqi government has taken control of the situation? When will we know, in other words? A formal declaration by Prime Minister Malaki? A reduction in wartime casualties? Diminishing numbers for Iraqi morgues? Reductions in Iraqi military desertion rates?

If the Iraqi government issues a proclamation tomorrow telling the US they are no longer welcome then it is rational to conclude they don't want us there.

Possibly, but does the government always reflect the will of the people? Perhaps Iraqi citizens want us out, but the government wants us to stay? It seems like this may be a fallacy of distribution.

Until then, a premature departure might very well spell deep trouble that creates another mess we may have to get involved with in the future.

Very possible, yes.

Iran will not allow this. Why?

Assuming this is true, I don't know. Perhaps he doesn't trust the UN, and thinks the UN will try to plant or manipulate evidence so as to warrant an attack or sanctions from the UN? Again, I think I agree with you that it is suspicious, but I'm lacking so much information as to make an informed judgment, that I feel almost ignominious in making a decision based on a lack of evidence.

I really am not troubled by this. From a military perspective, I think McCain was expressing what most soldiers in Vietnam probably thought.

But it doesn't make it right or desirable that the majority of soldiers felt this way. I don't think an appeal to popularity lessens the notion that McCain may be an intransigent person, may not heed the counsel from his advisors, and construct a wall of inflexibility toward any criticism of his policies that will add another $3 trillion on the tab for the Iraq war.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 7:02 PM Grizz has not yet responded

    
BMG
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 356
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 36 of 210 (470050)
06-09-2008 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Grizz
06-08-2008 7:15 PM


That nobody from the Iranian government condemns or recants his insane diatribes indicates either covert support for his words or indicates a government out of touch.

Or government officials that fear oppresive retaliations from within their own government for speaking out against the president, or government officials that fear displaying any hint of national disharmony on the world stage.

Did you by chance get to listen or read Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia when he was in the US?

I read parts of it, and, yes, it was totally absurd. Even though the President doesn't have authority to launch a nuclear weapon, I will admit that a nation with a very likely delusional president with the possibility of generating a nuclear weapon is disturbing.

However, the problem I have with McCain's approach to Iran is his "Iran better fear me 'cause I will not put up with them" attitude. I don't want our president to rely so heavily on fear and the threat of attack; this may lead Iran to believe that creating a nuclear weapon is no longer an option, but a priority in defending themselves. "Speak softly"...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 7:15 PM Grizz has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 37 of 210 (470149)
06-09-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
06-08-2008 10:20 PM


Re: Changing of the guard
I've been listening to Glen Beck's interviews with Bob Bar. I'm heavily considering him as my pick. Friday he interviewed him for the full hour. It's likely on UTube.

Yes, so far he is my number one. But that is not really saying all that much since I don't care for the other three candidates. He has experience and I seem to align with him better than everyone else.

I guess all I can say is to get the word out there. Most people are not even aware that he's on the ticket. Many people, conservatives and liberals, may simply think that Barr is best suited for the job.


“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2008 10:20 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Grizz
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 38 of 210 (470166)
06-09-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rrhain
06-08-2008 11:32 PM


My apologies to Rrhain. I unfairly and wrongly chatacterized his infromation and accuracy.

I had posted :

"You might want to actually look at the bills and voting records and not just repeat what you read on CNN. The same applies to Republicans who get their info from Faux News. You are discussing packed Bills. There was no bill to "provide armor and equipment to the troops in Iraq" or a bill to "provide more funding to VA inpatient and outpatient services." etc.."

Firs of all, I actually meant "Packaged" bill -- typo. Various interests often add in unrelated line items to a bill to make it more palatable to the opposition or to try to make passage of one item contingent upon another. Obviously, politicians will often use this as a compromise strategy or as a way to publicly eviscerate the opposition should they choose to vote Nay.

I stand corrected on the issue of appropriations and in my haste I did not take into account all of the amendments tacked on to existing bills at a later time. I was following the key voting record on the floor and was not paying attention to the stream of appropriations and amendments. Rhain was clearly better informed on the fine details of the amendments later added to the bills in question. I stand corrected. I was wrong.

I consider myself an independent and am pretty moderate on most issues. I am not a party hack and really am not trying to convince anyone they should vote for McCain. I am supplying the reason why I currently support McCain and am doing so on the basis of his record on the major issues of importance to me. As stated, foreign policy and the handling of Iraq and Iran are most important in my decision. The budget and economy come in as a close second. Major key votes and sponsored bills tell me more about how one is likely to proceed with foreign policy than how one votes on budget appropriations or amendments to existing bills.

As already stated, McCain's record shows he is a fiscal conservative. He does not seem the type to spend taxpayer funds unless it can be shown that the funds are going to be used with efficiency and accountability. Bush has been anything but fiscally conservative. He has spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse and I believe it necessary that someone with a more fiscally conservative approach try to get the budget back to the condition it was in during the pre-Bush era.

And regarding your VA Watchdog site, didn't you read your own source?

I did read it and it is not "my" source. It is a relatively unbiased source that deals with issues important to veterans. In fact, it's about as unbiased as you will get on the issue from the perspective of veterans. Obviously, not everyone agrees with McCain's approach and this is clear in the article. If you read VA news, McCain has always made it clear from the beginning that he opposes the current structure of the VA system and has worked to sponsor and introduce a new GI bill that in his view would be more efficient and productive. McCain has always fought hard for an overhaul of the VA system and has always opposed the current status quo. This is nothing new. He has also been constantly opposed in this efforts.

I myself am a veteran and part of my undergraduate education was paid for using the GI Bill. I can use the VA facilities for medical care but why don't I? To be quite frank, because they suck. Talk to veterans and 90% of them will likely tell you the same thing -- they use their employers/wife's/school/family medical policy even though the VA benefits are available. Ask a veteran when and if they use VA facilities and they will likely say, "Only if I have to." Also, nearly every veteran will be puzzled by the fact that more and more money goes into the system but it never gets any better.

I am not really disturbed by Mcain's opposition to the status quo because I understand his intentions and he realizes his vote will have no effect. He understands very well his opposition is in the minority. I don't think his goal is to screw anyone over. Although many Veterans would disagree with McCains position against the status quo, they will mostly agree with McCain's reasoning --the system sucks and needs an overhaul and nobody is paying attention. We keep throwing more money into a system that doesn't appear to do anything at all to address its shortcomings. Most would agree that the VA system is not getting better, it is getting worse. How can this be when we keep throwing more money into the VA system? This has been McCain's gripe all along.

Accountability is an issue in the system. None of the policy makers seem to care about change because they are too afraid of the consequences of voting against current bills and sponsoring their own. Simply throwing more money at the system obviously is not fixing the problems so why do we continue to just add more and more funds and not address the problems or attempt to overhaul the system? McCain has tried to introduce bills but has been shot down.

If you read the news and VA reports you will in fact see McCain has been trying to draw attention to this issue. For the past two years he has been saying that given the lessons learned from manpower issues in Iraq, any new benefits that are added to the current ones should be dependant on the years served. For example, Instead of four years of college for three years of service, why not give a year of tuition for each year served? Not only does this gives one the incentive to stay on longer, it address potential manpower issues and puts less strain on recruitment and budgets. It also frees up funds to restructure the current VA health system and requires less expenditures in training new soldiers.

Example: You spend $100,000 to train a new soldier in a technical specialty and they leave after three years because they have no further incentive to stay on. You then have to train another soldier in his place when you could have added an extra year of service and received more benefit from the inititial training outlay. Every year you don't have to train a new recruit, the more money saved.

McCain has never said the goal is to deny services. He simply believes services like tuition reimbursement should be contingent upon years of service. Funds saved from this change could then go into revamping the healthcare issues within the VA system. He sees this as a much better method than just throwing more money at a system that never gets any better. It also addressed manpower issues. Of course, many do not agree with this approach but these are the things he has been proposing. His we have been stuffing more money into the VA system for decades but it only gets worse.

It is dishonest to say his goal is to screw over the soldiers or to take away benefits. It is also a little crazy to think, prior to an election year, he would vote down any such funds if his intent was not as stated. The only result would be creating opposition with your own base and making a mockery of yourself with veterans. McCain believes the system is screwed and needs to be fixed.

Now, Obama isn't perfect. On the $20M supplement, Obama voted against it, too. But, he voted for the $430M increase to the VA as well as the $1.5B increase and the increased rest time.

But I can just as easily mention every item Obama voted against and without trying to figure out his rationale, simply state "See, he obviously is trying to screw [enter your interest here]. He is being mean with sinister motives and is out to screw over [enter your interest here]. To really look at it objectively it helps if you try to take into context all other factors and not simply see something you want to.

Regarding the other issues your brought up: troop deployments, redeployments etc...

This vote is always split along party lines. Democrats opposing the deployment and Republicans wanting to keep the status quo. Nothing new here.

I see this as a reality of manpower rather than a disregard for solders. Planners have realized that in order to maintain current troop levels you either: 1) start up a draft or 2) use rapid redeployments. I really don't want to sound cold or callous about this but I must bring this up -- this is the military. We are at war in Iraq. One signs the papers knowing in advance this scenario could happen; It's in the fine print. The only reason the military exists is to prepare and train for war.

Serving in the military is a SACRIFICE. You are being asked to potentially do things that require great personal hardship for you and your family. You do not sign up for the armed forces with the idea you might go on a comfortable field trip and get to pick and choose when and for how long you are deployed. If you did, then you are either misinformed or naive. The fact is, especially in the Guard and Reserve, many signed up simply to get the benefits, believing they would just serve a few weeks a year and reap the benefits that come with it.

In your contract it is clearly stated that in the event of a conflict you could be deployed for very long periods of time -- your duty can be extended indefinitely. It further states that such deployments will depend on the manpower needs of your service branch at the time and place of a conflict. It then goes on to ask you to attest by your signature and oath that you are fully aware of this potentiality and being of sound mind, agree without any reservation to fulfill the terms of this contract, should you be called upon to do so.

If you are concerned with this type of hardship being a possibility, it is at that point that you should walk away, not when you are being ordered to deploy. This is always a possibility. If you do not want this potential burden then do not sign up for the military .I agree this is not for everybody but nobody is forcing you to make the final decisions to join. You join of your own free will knowing the potential consequences for you and your family should the situation warrant your deployment in any manner sees fit.

During WWII and WWI you didn't come home until the war was over. During Vietnam, a soldier typically had a one year deployment. The current shortage in manpower has created the necessity of quick redeployments. Such is the nature of military life. You go when you are ordered. This is not about neglecting to care for the soldiers. As you find in any branch of the military, you do not do what is in your own interests first. You do what is in the best interest of your unit, your service branch, and the nation. In the military you learn very quickly that your interests come last. You are part of a team. That's the job of a soldier. If they say we are short and you must redeploy rapidly, you redeploy rapidly. That's why the words Service and Sacrifice are used so often when discussing the military.

Yes it sucks for those on deployment and yes it involves hardship. But you did in fact agree to do this. You are giving up your freedom and facing the unknown and facing the uncertainty of deployment at any time and for any length. This may sound harsh and uncaring but any such complaint in the service would be met with the screaming reply, "What did you expect? What do you think you are here for? This is the Army. This ain't no frickin day job."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 06-08-2008 11:32 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rrhain, posted 06-10-2008 7:06 AM Grizz has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Jazzns, posted 06-10-2008 6:20 PM Grizz has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 39 of 210 (470237)
06-10-2008 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Grizz
06-09-2008 7:17 PM


Grizz responds to me:

quote:
As stated, foreign policy and the handling of Iraq and Iran are most important in my decision. The budget and economy come in as a close second. Major key votes and sponsored bills tell me more about how one is likely to proceed with foreign policy than how one votes on budget appropriations or amendments to existing bills.

And that's fine. But McCain has made nothing but policy blunder after policy blunder with regard to Iraq/Iran and the economy. Have you forgotten that McCain was one of the Keating 5? He got caught in the process of taking bribes!

Why on earth would you want to put him in charge? If these are your most important criteria, why on earth would you vote against your own interests? I'm not telling you who to vote for. I am simply pointing out that your chosen candidate does not advocate what you claim is important to you.

So why are you considering voting for him?

quote:
I did read it and it is not "my" source.

It is "your" source in that you are the one that referenced it. I am hardly implying that you're the one that wrote it. However, you used the information there to justify your argument. However, the source that you quoted (hence, "your source") actually came to the opposite conclusion: McCain does not have their endorsement but is actually considered to be bad for veterans. If you are truly concerned about the military, why would you put someone who has consistently voted against providing the support our troops need?

Why are you voting against your own interests?

quote:
I can use the VA facilities for medical care but why don't I? To be quite frank, because they suck.

They didn't used to. The VA system used to be one of the best health care systems we had. And then they were written out of the budget. And when amendments came forward to increase their funding, McCain voted against them...even though he was voting for the bill.

Why are you voting against your own interests?

quote:
I am not really disturbed by Mcain's opposition to the status quo

Huh? What "opposition"? The Bush plan is what is in charge and McCain has been right there, pushing it along.

quote:
He understands very well his opposition is in the minority.

Huh? The majority position is the liberal one. Most people disagree with his plans for Iraq and Iran. Most disagree with his economic plans.

quote:
I don't think his goal is to screw anyone over.

This is what I call the "kicking puppies" response. That is, so long as the person in question can be shown not to kick puppies, then the conclusion is that he's actually a good person and can be trusted as if the only criteria for being a bad person is kicking puppies. The fact that McCain isn't rubbing his hands with an evil laugh as if he were some caricature from a melodrama doesn't mean his policies don't screw most everyone over.

quote:
Accountability is an issue in the system.

And McCain has voted against all attempts at holding those responsible for the mess we are in accountable.

So why do you want him in charge?

quote:
Example: You spend $100,000 to train a new soldier in a technical specialty and they leave after three years because they have no further incentive to stay on.

This is naive. That isn't why Soldiers leave. It's being sent to a third tour in Iraq that's doing it. You seem to be forgetting history, too: The Webb version is on par with the WWII education benefit. It was one of the best investments this country has ever made.

Are you saying it was a bad idea to educate the WWII vets?

And it appears that you haven't read the CBO's analysis of the Webb bill. Indeed, it says there would be a decline of about 16% in re-enlistment, but that would be offset by an increase in new enlistment of...you guessed it...about 16%.

And at only $52B over 10 years, it's a pittance compared to what we're spending on Iraq...which McCain wishes to extend indefinitely and start anew in Iran.

"Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!"

quote:
McCain has never said the goal is to deny services.

I never said he did. Again, you've got the "kicking puppies" response...that so long as we can show that McCain isn't the worst thing in the world, then it must be that he actually has something going for his stance. Things can be unacceptable without being the paragon of evil.

quote:
simply state "See, he obviously is trying to screw [enter your interest here].

And now you think you can read minds? I never claimed to understand McCain's motivations. I simply pointed out that he has consistently voted against the interests of the military. He may love the military, but actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter what he says. It only matters what he does and the policies he has pushed through have made our military weaker. They have screwed our Servicemembers over. It doesn't matter if he didn't meant it. The fact of the matter is that they did and he doesn't want to change them.

quote:
It is dishonest to say his goal is to screw over the soldiers or to take away benefits.

And since I have never said that, one wonders why you're bringing it up.

This makes twice you have simply made things up out of whole cloth concerning my statements. You apologized for it once and I can accept that. But seeing as how you immediately slipped back into it after apologizing leads me to think that you are more interested in trying to justify your preconceived notion than live up to your self-proclaimed independence.

I'm not telling you who to vote for. I am simply pointing out that the person you seem to have selected does not support the issues you consider to be important.

So why are you voting against your own interests?

quote:
Regarding the other issues your brought up: troop deployments, redeployments etc...

Huh? The only thing I brought up was the bill to provide longer leave between deployments. All the military analysts have said that it's a good idea. To have the Servicemembers spending practically no time back home before being deployed to Iraq does nothing but depress morale. It's part of the reason why suicide rates in the military have been at the highest levels we've ever seen.

And the only people who voted against it were Republicans and Lieberman.

quote:
This vote is always split along party lines.

And it is impossible to consider the possibility that one side is simply wrong? Even though there are a lot of them who are wrong?

quote:
I really don't want to sound cold or callous about this but I must bring this up -- this is the military.

And what makes you think I don't know that? Let's be perfectly clear: You don't know what my background is. I take great pains to keep it out of the discussion because I want you to respond to what I actually said, not what you think someone like me would say.

quote:
During WWII and WWI you didn't come home until the war was over.

And after WWII, you were given a college education.

Apparently, that's too good for our Servicemembers today.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Grizz, posted 06-09-2008 7:17 PM Grizz has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 210 (470290)
06-10-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by BMG
06-09-2008 2:32 AM


Bush in fact greatly increased domestic spending. He did not simply increase military spending.

McCain is not making promises on how a new government program can help you as Bush did and Obama is doing, and so the correct perception is to realize he is not going to continue to increase federal spending. Iraq is winding down in all likelihood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by BMG, posted 06-09-2008 2:32 AM BMG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 06-11-2008 1:19 AM randman has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 41 of 210 (470340)
06-10-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Grizz
06-09-2008 7:17 PM


Recommended Reading and Reasons for My Choice
If all you are doing is watching the news, you will likely get a very distorted picture that plays into the stereotypes such as Obama being weak on national security.

I would highly recommend to anyone who is sitting on the fence on this issue to read Obama's book "Audacity of Hope". I picked it up and it was more than I thought it would be. I sort of had an impression that it would be an uplifting rhetoric about his life, similar to some of his speeches that get so much play, but I found out that it was actually a very detailed window into this guy's head.

I was very interested in McCain before 2006 but the way he has shifted his positions made him very bitter for me. He is now EXTREMELY hawkish on foreign relations. He absolutly intends to continue not paying for the war or the tax cuts that he wants.

The absolute kicker for me was when he voted AGAINST the ban on so called "enhanced interrogation" techniques even after he fought for so long against them. This to me is the ultimate betrayal and the most serious mismanagement of our government over the last 8 years. Our torture policy a losing game for us. It diminishes our standing in the world, it provides NO worthwhile intelligence, it puts our soldiers on foreign soil at extreme risk, and quite frankly it is one of the most immoral practices that could ever be sanctioned by a government short of genocide.

Even in the darkest day of the Revolutionary War our first president made the very specific decision to ban torture against the enemy to send a message to the world that we were civilized people who stood for morality and freedom. This was in spite of the fact that his fighters and even some citizens who were captured were frequently tortured by the British.

America in its birth stood for something important. Allowing torture to occur to people we capture is one of the darkest stains on our legacy and if we do not stop it these practices will come back to haunt us for generations.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Grizz, posted 06-09-2008 7:17 PM Grizz has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 42 of 210 (470342)
06-10-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-05-2008 2:49 PM


I am curious about your characterization of this election.

white elderly and a black youngster

Rather than sit out, why don't you do the non-intellectually-lazy thing and actually make a fair judgement of the canidates on their policies and approaches to governing AFTER you have examined them.

I mean its not like you have to do much work to find them. Their policies are displayed on their websites and many other sites have summaries. Its just reading, you probably do heavier lifting reading some of the threads on this forum that it would take to convince you of a canidate.

If you are not voting, then who are you electing?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-05-2008 2:49 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 210 (470391)
06-11-2008 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
06-10-2008 2:47 PM


randman writes:

quote:
Iraq is winding down in all likelihood.

Then we should be leaving, right?

So why is McCain saying we will be there for years to come?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:47 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 2:36 AM Rrhain has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 210 (470405)
06-11-2008 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rrhain
06-11-2008 1:19 AM


He is saying we can have bases there like we do in Germany for years to come after the peace is established, not constant combat ops, and he is right. Unless we are going to abandon the theater altogether, it makes sense to have a presence or may make sense, as a stabalizing factor like we have done in Europe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 06-11-2008 1:19 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Jazzns, posted 06-11-2008 10:25 AM randman has responded
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 4:53 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Stephen
Junior Member (Idle past 3931 days)
Posts: 7
From: Charleston, SC, USA
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 45 of 210 (470425)
06-11-2008 6:08 AM


I just hope that McCain doesn't win but I'm not sure that will really happen. The republicans had some time to prepare for the election compared to the democrats. :/
    
Prev12
3
456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019