Oh, it fucking does not. Why is that exact amount the measure of giving a crap about the troops? Why not twice as much?
Offering a free education to wounded vets is pretty much the least we could fucking do. There’s really no good ethical argument for opposing that, and it’s all but impossible for anyone who does oppose (for blatantly self-serving political reasons) it to argue with a straight face that he gives a rats ass about them.
McCain opposes expanding education benefits.
McCain defends opposition to GI bill.
He, in fact, gets a D on his voting record from veterans.
I guess his rating improved with this last GI bill since he didn’t vote against it-- this time.
Because twice as much won’t get you twice the education, but less than that much will preclude some (many?) from being able to afford a complete education at all.
This isn’t about wounded vets-- it’s about all vets.
Sure there is. We aren’t ethically obliged to give them anything more than they were told they’d get when they signed up. We are no more ethically bound to give them more than we are to give them a pony. McCain gave his reason for opposing this bill. I have no reason to not accept his explanation. It took political courage to stand by his convictions on this, since it’s such a Mom and Apple Pie type bill.
Well, there’s always the infamous inability to recall if he even has a position on contraception, let alone what it would be if he could remember; “You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception. . .”
You simply have to read the entire exchange to get the full brunt of the idiocy on display.
:eek:
And although I wouldn’t classify it as a “gaffe”, he sure has flip-flopped on the issue of pulling troops out of wars.
From here.
All vets includes wounded vets. What’s you’re point? The fact remains that he does not believe wounded vets deserve a free education if they were wounded on their first tour of duty. The fact that he would equally deprive non-wounded vets as wounded vets is not a mitigator.
Wow, that’s cold. Of course, it’s also evasive. We’re talking about changing the contract for the future. Do you think a wounded vet desreves a free education? Yes or no?
His explanation is that he’s worried about retention. He’s afraid the miltary isn’t going to be able to keep enough bullet sponges in Iraq so he wants to lengthen the stick on the carrot (of course, it seems to escape him that sweetening the GI Bill might actually help with their recruitment problems).
He didn’t stand by his convictions, he sold out and pandered to his base.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
All vets includes wounded vets. What’s you’re point?[/'quote]
My point is to not allow you to appeal to sympathy in your argument. You keep talking about wounded vets, but this bill is about all vets.
Facts often are.
There is nothing evasive about it. I was stating a fact. We are not ethically bound to give one-term vets anything more than they signed up for.
I have not studied the issue enough to offer an educated answer. I can see valid arguments on both sides.
What base is that?
While at the same time sucking on the public teat for his $58,358 annual navy disability pension; tax free.
Whoever figures that out should let him know! 
I don’t usually get involved in GD, but I’ll just jump in here: How do we decide who gets the GI Bill? All people serving? All people serving in combat? All people serving in combat who get wounded? I think that’s what John’s asking, and if not, I apoligize. Is there a line on supporting the troops?
As for Mom and Apple Pie…hell, that’s been used so many damn times that it’s practically lost all meaning.
Yeah, pretty much. **Diogenes **wants to make this about wounded Iraq war veterans, but the Iraq war will be over eventually (Obama says he’ll bring the troops home in 16 months), and this bill will still be in effect. As I think about it, a fully paid education is too generous for serving one tour in the military. If disabled vets need more assistance, I’m all for that. But this bill is too sweeping.
Even worse, he’s against educating black single tour veterans as well! And female single tour veterans! And gay single tour veterans! And poor single tour veterans! Never before has the world seen such a heartless bigot!
What kind of strawman bullshit is this? The fact is, that people really are coming back wounded from Iraq and McCain really is saying they haven’t earned an education. The fact remains that McCain is saying that a guy who spends two years driving an M1 in Fallujah is less deserving of a free education that guy who spends 6 years driving a desk at Barksdale.
Protesting that wounded vets aren’t the only ones McCain wants to screw does not alter the fact that he wants to screw them.
And he also believes the guy who drives an M1 in Fallujah for 6 years is more deserving of a free education than a guy who spends 2 years a behind a desk at Barksdale.
The ‘strawman’ bullshit is you trying to attribute to McCain a position on wounded soldiers that he does not have.
I’d be right with you if it had been a disabilities benefits bill. It was not.
He told Matt Lauer this morning that when the troops come home is “not important”.
And in that case he would be right. The circumstances are not symmmetrical. Combat vets deserve a free ride regardless of how many tours they serve? You disagree?
He most certainly does have it. he’s said so himself. He believes that a free education is too generous a reward for one enlistment, no matter how much they sacrifice.
In my household we’ve decided that he thinks that babies come in powdered form like dehydrated soup. You just add hot water and BAM … instant baby.
Then you feed it to Dick Cheney.
McCain on the question of PC vs MAC:
I agree.
So moved.
So ordered.
[ /Modding ]