Like I said, they don't want to spend their own money on it. That they don't want to spend my money on it is beside the point. They aren't doing me any favors.

...


This is meaningless without knowing how many Dem vs. Rep. people in those states contributed. If Oklahoma, for example, is a red state, it's still not impossible that more charitable contributions came from Democrats. I'm not suggesting this is the case, I'm just pointing out that your conclusion is made on incomplete evidence.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq.

March 2007: McCain was absent from a vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year.

February 2007: McCain was absent to vote against a resolution condemning escalation.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for 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.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.

Now.. I'm still checking some of these.. as some (2 so far) had the funding built into the resolution.. such as the tax loophole.. so although I understand Law's point about funding some of these proposals.. that doesn't address all of them..
But, I also agree with Helice.. supporting our troops with better health care, educational/housing opportunities, better pay (of course paying them as much as the private troops would be costly) these issues should have already been included in the war budget.. we shouldn't have to debate or vote on whether to increase healthcare, equipment safety, and financial support..

Ah! There you go! That's exactly how lots of people feel about the way the current Administration is handling our economy!

The American people, after September 11 2001, were in shock and rage over our loss, and we were anxious to revenge ourselves on the perpetrators of the terrible crime that happened here... we were all eager to go to Afghanistan and kick some butt. The spirit of suport and national unity we all shared was used and abused by the current Administration to lead us into a war with Iraq under less than honest pretenses, and national sentiment has tuened. The public has seen the overthrow of the former Iraqi regime and the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq, our stated goal... now the people are weary of seeing American lives lost, and American treasure squandered endlessly on a sandpit that will never yield any retuen for America. The Administration is spending MY money. And your money. And the money of all the other taxpayers in the country. And it's to do something that the vast majority of the taxpayers do NOT want done.

On the other hand, I think sentiment rather favors being good to veterans who fought in the Bush wars. People hate paying taxes, true, but they have to be paid no matter what and peopole would rather see their tax money go for a decent cause like supporting veterans than a bad causing like perpetuating a failed war.

In my opinion. (which is shared by the majority at the current time)

Rather like "The Walrus and the Carpenter".

I wanted to respond to a couple of alleged examples of McCain's lack of concern for the troops posted by Wanderingspryte. I think they demonstrate the problem with attributing a lack of concern to such votes.
Webb's ammendment was little more than political grandstanding. It would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to rotate troops into Iraq in any consistent and predictable fashion and would have required tour extensions for those actually sent to Iraq. Those are good reasons to have opposed it. Another very good reason to have opposed it is something called the seperation of powers. Our Constitution gives the President control over our military. This includes the rate and frequency of troop deployments. I am not at all sure such a law would have passed a Constitutional challenge. That same Constitution gives the Congress the ulitmate power to rein in the President's use of the military though. That power comes in the form of controlling funding for military activities. COngress is certianly free to use that power but it is not free to usurp the President's position as Commander-in-Chief.

Again, this goes directly to the issue of Executive branch control over the military. Congress is certainly free to cut off funding beyond a certain date but it is not, nor should it be, free to dictate the pace of troop deployments or the number of troops deployed.

I do not think a resolution limited to saying essentially it is the opinion of the Congress the President should withdraw troops would violate the seperation of powers. Of course, I do not think supporting such a resolution demonstrates support for the troops and opposing it certainly does not demonstrate a lack of support for the troops.

I could'nt agree with you more wanderingspryte, If I may add............

McCain like Bush is a fraud and pretend to support our troops but when it comes down to it, once these kids come home with physical and emotional damage, they don't give a damn about them, and anybody who denies it is a fraud also.

It took them forever to get our troops the proper armour to protect themselves, and that was after we lost precious lives, leaving the parents and siblings to grieve because of their carelesness. I could give lots of examples of lack of support for our troops but the majority of the American public already know this, there's just a few who will alway's be in denial.

It would be more accurate, in McCain's case, and for a more apt analogy, to say my entire opening post smacks of "you don't love your daughter because you don't want to spend money for her education, you don't want to spend money when she's ill, and you don't want to give her the best of everything, as she deserves."

Nobody suggested anyone in the Army get a Porsche. You've given us a fatally flawed analogy.

More interesting is that you frame it in paternalistic terms, as though McCain were the army's Daddy, and the troops are somehow McCain's little girls.

Not at all, Dax. Your analogy is fatally flawed. Lets dissect it a bit, shall we?

Implicit in your analogy is the suggestion that McCain does not want to spend money for the education of service membes. Not at all true. The current GI Bill offers in excess of 36,000 dollars for schooling. The Army College Fund others in excess of 50,000 dollars. An enlistee can opt into both programs. Add to that various National Guard programs like the one here in Louisiana that pays full tuition for NG Soldiers who attend a State school. Consider the Army's college loan repayment enlistment option where the Army will pay off the enlistee's student loans. The military ALREADY pays a GREAT deal for civilian education for service members and your suggestion to the contrary is simply not supported by the facts.

Again, your claim is simply untrue Dax. Medical care accounts for more than 10% of the TOTAL military expenditures. Its more than 50 billion dollars a year...$50,000,000,000. More than 75% of that is spent on veterans and retirees. The Veteran's Administration has its own budget and the 2009 budget for the VA is just shy of 100,000,000,000 dollars. For you to suggest McCain does not want to spend any money to treat ill troops is again simply not supported by the truth.

Again, your analogy is flawed. Its harder to present specifics here because "best of everything" is a relative expression. However, I strongly disagree with you, Dax. The gear we have is pretty damn good. I would even go so far as to say it is among the best of everything available. In the 15 months I was in Iraq, I saw quite a bit of effort and expense invested in ensuring it stayed that way. My trucks were constantly upgraded as new and better armor technologies came available. Our electronic countermeasures for defeating IEDs were similarly upgraded. Our individual body armor was upgraded three different times. Our living quarters were upgraded as new materials came available. Your claim does not comport with the truth nor does it comport with my personal experience.

Frankly, Dax, I think your hatred for the Republicans has motivated you to deliberately distort things in an effort to villify McCain. Its unworthy of you, Dax.

It's your analogy that's flawed.

You said "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..."

The army isn't all girls, and nobody is getting, let alone asking for, a Porsche.

In my view, any vote that goes towards denying troops the equipment they need (which you say didn't happen in your unit, but cannot deny has happened throughout this Iraq conflict to your fellow soldiers.)

Denying them means to continue their education, or to be more accurate, refusing to allow an increase in GI benefits, at this time when the price of everything is as high as it's ever been because of the very war they've been ordered to fight in, is unconscionable.

In my post I wrote "McCain was one of only 13 Senators voting against a $430,000,000 appropriation for outpatient care and treatment for veterans." This can't be justified for any reason. Unless of course you think the government is doing everything it possibly can for troops who were wounded in combat, and to do more would cause confiscatory taxation for Americans.

In my opinion, the 430 million dollar appropriation asks about a dollar and a half from every American. Hell, I'll send in three dollars myself, to cover the cost of someone else who doesn't want to pay. I'll bet a lot of Americans would do that.



I've said time and again, I don't hate Republicans at all. My father was a Republican, as far as that goes. In those days, however, Republicans were simply the party of big business, Dems were the party of the people, and everyone knew it.

It's the neocons, with their smug and superior white Christian "I am better than you, I know what's best for me, screw you, I'm taking it" under the guise of a political philosophy is abhorrent, unAmerican and in many cases traitorous to the principles so many young Americans have died for. Neocons sacrifice nothing, give up nothing, their kids don't fight in the war, neither they nor their loved ones are signing up for Iraq/Afghanistan, they simply send other people's kids over there and sit back and masturbate to pictures of Dick Cheney. (Symbolically, I hope, not literally).

That's who I hate, and if you saw things less myopically, so would you.

Watch out, Lawmage! It's a trap! Don't respond in kind or you'll be accused of "name calling" and some folks frown on that saying it lowers the tenor of the forums.