I find it extremely telling that although Dax made an acusation filled with facts, the responses to it are simply personal attacks that address his supposed "style", and none of his content.

I don't suppose Dax's opponents are capable of presenting a reasoned, well-thought, logical, honest rebuttal based on fact; therefore I am forced to believe the presentation that isn't based on nyah-nyah-nyah bullying. Points to Dax. Bullies: zero.

Oh well, you want a rebuttal. Here we go:

"John McCain votes for veterans benefits."
Does somebody have to go to the trouble of getting up Senate Bill numbers he voted for or might it suffice to say he has voted for some bills and voted against others, and he's voted for some amendments and voted against other amendments? Then Dax and be right and I can be right and you can be right and everyone can be right and we can move along to something else.

OK.. Here ya go..

I remember the first Republican debate held Spring 07. I watched with great anticipation because I keep an open mind regarding all the candidates...both Democrats and Republicans. After watching both political party debates, the candidate I was most impressed with was John McCain. After all the bs, canned insincere answers from most of the candidates...it was McCain's answer to a woman whose son had died in Iraq. He sincerely comforted her in that moment...his focus was on her. The pathos of the moment brought tears to my eyes...

Despite McCain's Senate voting record, he cares deeply about the Americans in Iraq.

Oh, I think Mr. McCain supports the troops--he just supports the military objectives more. Now, if we could only understand exactly what those objectives are...

I remembered something today that might possibly be, at least a former, little-known reason for military presence in Germany

I was coming home from Berlin. This was before the Wall came down. Since there were no more sleepers available on the train, I was put into the compartment that was reserved for the MP guard. We'd stopped at the Marienborn (Russian) side of the Marienborn/Helmsted border crossing. I was at the window when I saw a Russian guard patrolling the siding. I opened the window and called out, "Good evening" to him in Russian. It was the only Russian I knew. He was about my age and was dressed in the long, woolen, one-size-fits-all overcoat of the time. All of the excess material had been drawn up into a lump on his back on which he wore his pack, including bedroll. He was armed.

We'd just started a broken English conversation when WHANG--the window was closed by the MP, who led me back to the compartment and proceeded to give me utter Hell. "You, of all people, certainly should know better than to try to distract a guard from his duty!" he yelled. When he saw I was close to tears, he relented. "Don't you know that they probably have guards guarding the guards? Do you know what you may have done to that kid?"

Gee, thanks, Sarge. You've given me guilt I've carried with me forever.

After we'd crossed into Helmsted, his tone became avuncular as he explained that one of the duties of the MPs on the train was to take on and hide any potential escapee from E. Germany and that Marienborn was their last chance. The E. German security detail was heaviest there, but, with the cooperation of the W. German train personnel, the US had been able to smuggle some defectors out of E. Germany. They hadn't been successful the previous week--the last time that particular MP had been assigned to the train.

He then left the compartment, conviently leaving his paper-laden clipboard on the seat next to me. Among other things, it had papers to cover any possible occurrence. It also had a copy of the report from the previous week detailing what had happened during the unsuccessful escape attempt.

Law, you'd probably have had the Sergeant up for review--at least, you'd have issued a written reprimand had he been a part of your command.

But he gave me hope that, despite the actions of a stupid, little girl and, despite the earlier unsuccessful escape attempt, there would be more attempts and some of them would be successful.

Thats just it, Helice. In with Dax's "facts" is a great deal of unsupported accusation. He claims that McCain's voting record reflects a lack of support for the troops. I argue that it does not. What it represents is a difference in perspective. For instance, the existing GI Bill is already pretty generous. It pays on order of 36,000 dollars in benefits in exchange for the individual Soldier's service and his or her initial 1,200 dollar buy in. The revised GI Bill that McCain opposed is considerably more generous. It pays up to the cost of tuition at the most expensive public college in the Soldier's state, it pays a living stipend based on the housing allowance for a a single sergeant in that area, and it does not require an initial buy in. McCain and others who opposed this revision had legitimate concerns about its effect on retention.

There are similar issues with the various Veterans Benefit bills fielded over time. Issues of where does the funding come from? Are they truely necessary or are they election year gimmicks designed to garner votes for their sponsors? Sure, we can shower our service members with wealth in a misguided effort to display our affection for them but declining to do so does not demonstrate a lack of support. It demonstrates a sense of reality and proportion.

The truth is, you can assign any position to McCain and it will be true. He has morphed from a maverick to a Bush Conservative in his desire to win the Presidency, so name any issue, he's been on both sides of it.

(Insert paragraph here about how dare Conservatives accuse Dems of flip flopping when their own candidate has an Olympic gold medal in flip.)

So in fact, Lawmage is both right and wrong. Sometimes McCain supports the troops, or did at one time. Sometimes he doesn't. It depends on the day, his mood, what Karl Rove had to say that morning, and what he remembers thinking and/or saying the previous day.

Republicans are still painting this guy as a maverick, as though the conservative wing of their party would ever vote for a "maverick" who doesnt tow the party line. It's patent nonsense to suggest McCain is a maverick. He's a maverick like Ray is a liberal.

Thank you, Lawmage, for responding with facts about the issue.

Okay, the proposed bill is more generous than the existing bill. In light of the sacrifices made by soldiers who've seen active service, I personally don't have a problem with that -- I'm in favor of rewarding honorable service well. As a current college student I'm aware of the going tuition rates in Connecticut, a state with one of the highest cost of living indexes in the country, and it's around $3500 per semester. I'm thinking about that and.... I'm willing to foot that too, for men and women who have served under fire. I feel grateful to veterans. I like the idea of seeing them adequately thanked, and this is barely adequate.

After the Vietnam War we ended up with many homeless veterans who weren't adequatley taken care of, guys who ended up living on the street because they couldn't get jobs, had no education, no prospects, no "living stipend", just a cold shoulder from the American people. That was a sin that we should make sure never happens again. We have to take care of our own.



Well, I consider it part of the cost of the war, actually. If we can continue to occupy two foreign countries and wage war on their inhabitants, I think we can afford to take good care of the people who did that business for us when they come home. I think the cost of the bill would be minor in comparison to the other costs of the war.



Possibly both. But everyone who supports it would likely garner votes by doing so, it doesn't have to be an isolated political issue.



The tuition and living stipend you described don't exactly sound like being "showered with wealth" to me, Lawmage. That sounds like hyperbole.

I'm not in favor of rewarding veterans because it's a political issue that seperates two parties, I just think it's the right thing to do. Does your position depend on political alleigance, or are you truly convinced soldiers don't deserve more than we're giving them?

Conservatives aren't against benefitting the troops, they just won't spend their own money to do it.

Sometimes things you say can truly boggle the mind. When Congress spends money, no matter what party is in the majority, it isn't their money they are spending. They're spending MY money. And your money. And the money of all the other taxpayers in the country.

Reminds me of the quip about how accusing Congress of spending money like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors. At least the sailors are spending their own money.

But here's something to chew on. Surveys around the country show that, based upon majority of political sentiment, "Red" states tend to contribute more dollars, per capita to charitable causes than do "Blue" states. Based upon this evidence it would be more accurate to conclude that Conservatives are, in fact, more willing to spend money out of their own pockets on good causes than are Liberals.