"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill." --Obsidianwings.com

Also, McCain missed about ten votes on matters dealing with Iraq, and in June of 2006 he voted NO to a resolution that Bush start withdraswing troops from Iraq (with no specific timetable.)

Two months earlier, McCain was one of only 13 Senators voting against a $430,000,000 appropriation for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

Two years earlier, McCain voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating tax loopholes. In other words, he favors tax loopholes over veterans' welfare.

There's much more. You can find his record for yourself at many websites. My question is, why does McCain consistently vote against benefits for veterans?

One of the excuses he uses is that it will cause members of the armed forces to leave earlier if they get more benefits when out. But of course, benefit amounts can be linked to length of service, with smaller benefits for fewer years in service, etc. But McCain doesn't want these vets to have increased benefits at all.

If you close your eyes and sit silently for a moment, you can almost hear the veterans saying "Thank you" to John McCain.

Wait a minute. Maybe the first word isn't "thank".

While McCain was in Ohio, he took time to eat "Bahama Mama" bratwursts and cream puffs, and do a photo op with Lance Armstrong. Why didn't he find time to visit disabled veterans in the VA Medical Centers in Dayton and Cincinnati?

....And his true feelings for the troops is reflected by his statement that it's "not too important" when they come home from Iraq as long as not that many of them get killed over there.(100 year war)

Awwww now, come on. Is THAT what John McCain said? Really? He said it's not too important "as long as not that many of them get killed over there."

Is that REALLY what he said, or is this just one more pathetic example of a left-winger twisting what was really said, adding a few words, and then using that newly minted quote as a straw man to support their argument?

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me..."

translates: "What the heck, just leave em there..."

Atta girl! See? I knew you could quote what John McCain actually said if you just put your mind to it.


Awww heck. I'm in such a good mood, now, I'll even let you have your own translation. Sort of like that quote from the late Senator Moynihan: "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are NOT entitled to your own facts."

Sgt. James A. McHale

Dax's entire opening post smacks a lot of "You don't love your daughter because you did not buy her a Porche for her sweet 16 party..."

More like "you don't support the troops because you vote NO every time a benefits package comes up for vets."

As usual, the super rich neocons have conned a certain number of voters, yourself included, to vote against their own best interests. I can't believe you support a guy who doesn't want to help you after a career in the service.

But I imagine the "personal responsibility" always thrown out by neocons to justify their selfishness and greed kicks in here. No legs? You're lacking personal responsibility, boy! Get yourself a little cart and start selling newspapers after you've given yourself to your country. Nice way of saying thanks and honoring the troops.

Shame on you, argung against not only your own best interests, but those of the enlisted men you command. If it came to Bush visiting China, or using the same money to add some needed equipment to a Vet's hospital, I know where your vote would go.

There is no "daugther--Porsche" argument here, no vet is asking for a Porsche. It's a fake and fraudulent argument, You yourself would be all over someone who switched the scenario that way. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.

A soldier against increasing Veteran benefits. How could you?

On the other hand, if your fellow soldiers all feel the way you do, then maybe the returning Iraqi and Afghanistan vets have enough benefits and don't need any more than they already have. Maybe they'll be just fine. Maybe we should cut more out of the benefits because we don't want to be buying Porsches for our daughters. In other words, screw 'em. If that's okay with you---well, it's still not okay with me.

You're always right there to criticize me by saying I don't support the troops, but when I do support the troops you find a way to mock it. Your post is worthless as argument, as it deals with absolutely nothing substantial.

It grows more obvious with every post you write.

Again, another example of that pretentious left-wing arrogance. I love that "voting against your own best interests" mantra. Dax manages to use it twice in the same postings when what he's really pissed about is that Lawmage dares to oppose Dax's political agendas.

I have no political agenda.

John McCain votes agaist Veterans benefits, you and lawmage support that.

Those are the facts. Your post, as usual, carries no facts, just rhetoric, useless, meaningless, and not to the point.

The point is, McCain votes against increasing veterans benefits every time out, you and lawmage want to vote for him. Case closed.

You can refute it with facts like "I don't want to vote for him" or "He does vote to increase Vet benefits" if you can.

But you can't, because you know what I say is true.