The fact of the matter is that Republicans have been scoring massive political points by portraying Democrats as showing a contemptible lack of support for the troops, simply by virtue of opposing the President’s foreign policy. But when it comes to a number of substantive issues to benefit the troops, such as Sen. Webb’s GI bill to expand veteran’s benefits, or shortening the amount of time they have to spend in that hellhole, McCain has been opposed. This puts the whole issue of supporting the troops in a new perspective.
Not a gaffe, just a hypocrisy that I wish he would be taken the hell to task on: it’s from the ISSUES—Human Dignity & The Sanctity of Life section of his webpage (about halfway between *Overturning Roe v. Wade * and The Greatest Honor is to Serve the Cause of Human Dignity):
McCain is by his own admission an adulterer. He remarried in spite of the words of Jesus not to do so, yet panders about the sanctity of marriage to the Christian Right. He speaks in rhetoric and verisimilitude without once addressing the studies that show gays and many other non traditional homes seem to produce well adjusted children. I’d love to ask if he’s so damned big on protecting marriage then does that mean he plans to put aside the bitch he married and go back to his first wife?
And don’t get me started on the “Human Dignity” calling crap. (Yup, cause having an unwanted baby is dignified as all hell, as is being maimed in Iraq, or being one of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.)
I know this is not the debate, but John Mace, I respectfully disagree with your position. These young guys and girls have a high probability of having their earning potential negatively impacted once leaving the military because of PTSD or other injuries, or worse, having their very lives taken in the service of their country. The opportunity for a free college education is the very least that should be provided to ALL of them. The amount of time the recruit commits to or actually serves should have no bearing whatsoever on this compensation. The benefit to the military in increased levels of recruitment, and to the country in increased numbers of college attendees and, ultimately, college graduates, outweighs the unproven, and possibly spurious, argument that enactment will decimate the military through a massive increase in short-time service. You are correct about one thing, however. It is sweeping. It’s also the bloody right thing to do.
A question asked in ignorance rather than rhetorically: does the military still have a points system? If so, would the points accumulated by a 2 year combat veteran be equal to those of a 6 year non combat veteran?
Is it or is it not a legitimate position to want to tie benefits to the amount of time someone serves? If you think not, do you believe all pensions should be equal, regardless of time served?
Apples and oranges.
We aren’t talking about all benefits, we are talking about enlistment incentives, and I would say that a complete free college ride should be available to anyone who serves a full enlistment. At the very least, it should be available to anyone who serves in combat. Pensions are a non-sequitur with regard to the GI Bill.
Nonsense. If Dio is unwilling or unavailable, how about you answer the first question. Then if it applies, you can move on to the second. It’s really very simple. If, when you get to the second question think that the analogy is inapt, explain why. Of course you could just blabber “Apples and oranges” again, meaning that you ain’t got squat.
On edit, I see that Dio has offered an answer. See, it was possible after all.
The bill talks about more than education benefits. But let’s leave the discussion there. You have a legitimate position that someone who serves should be entitled, upon completion of their service, a full ride. But surely you can see that not everyone would agree with this and those that don’t aren’t automatically the scum of the earth or hate the military or don’t value their service. It behooves the country—greatly—to encourage experienced soldiers to serve more than one term. That’s one of the reasons pensions go up with length of service. In the end, you also have to look at the cost of whatever benefits being discussed. To Mace’s point, if you offer a bill that each soldier, at the end of their tour, gets $1,000,000 or that pensions are the same for all whether they’ve served 4 years or forty and someone votes against it, does that mean he or she doesn’t value those who serve? Come on Dio, this is ridiculous.
For the record, pensions offer a perfect analogy, as they tie benefits to length of service. Why is the concept okay for pensions but shows contempt for soldiers when applied to anything else?
Pensions are a non-sequitur because they are a reward for a career of service. The GI Bill is an incentment to enlist at all. One has nothing to do with the other.
And I don’t agree at all that anyone who believes that a college education is too generous a compensation for someone who gets his legs blown off in service to his country has any credibility in claiming compassion for the troops.
Neither does anyone who wants to keep them in Iraq, for that matter.
Bullshit. Yes, one is for a career—but careers of varying lengths. The other is for service. You simply want to declare that these two things are different and have nothing in common—that’s bullshit, and I think even you know it. The idea of having rewards tied to length of service is a legitimate position for either.
Well, how about having an honest fucking discussion about it then. As has been pointed out to you more than once, the bill didn’t single out wounded soldiers. You know this, yet you keep parroting it at some desperate attempt to cling on to an appeal to sympathy.
Dio, it seems you’ve put on your “Dio-with-the-fingers-in-the-ears” hat and you’re just going to la-la-la-la…
Knock yourself out.
It doesn’t matter that wounded vets are not singled out. The point is that they are included in the screw job, and that destroys McCain’s credibilitywhen he says he cares about vets. he doesn’t. He’s decided that his personal desire to be President is more important.
Let’s not, but say we did.
Childish crap like that is annoying.
The GI Bill my father took advantage of was not based on length of service, and rewarded even people who didn’t join up by choice. Why McCain doesn’t want to reward people who chose to put themselves on the line is beyond me. Plus, the country benefits by sending these kids to college, so there is good reason to help even those who were in for only one term.
But McCain is really tone deaf about this. How much is his military and warrior cred going to be undercut by being against this?
The GI Bill was in the country’s best interest because so many of its young men had been plucked out of their civilian lives and sent to war. It helped us greatly—maybe even a necessity—that we make up for that lost time. The cold fact of the matter is that the benefits for enlisting should be as low as possible to get the numbers we need. THAT is what is in the country’s best interest. A few years ago we weren’t getting the numbers we wanted/needed, so the government sweetened the pot. We have a volunteer army. If enough people are ready to volunteer without a free college education, we should not provide it. If we don’t that should be one of the things on the table to sweeten the deal. That said, it also behooves the country (since we do need and are going to have a military) to encourage soldiers to stay in for more than one term. The more experienced the army, the better. McCain’s idea strikes a good balance. It sweetens the deal for potential volunteers and rewards length of service.
You’re absolutely butchering logic here to reach for a point that can’t be made. The two sentences that follow are not logically equivalent:
“I do not believe that all vets deserve a free education.”
“I believe that all vets do not deserve a free education.”
You are being told the former, and hearing the latter. McCain’s position on the bill you are talking about does not preclude him supporting a later one providing free education to those he does feel are deserving, and yet you’re pretending that it does.
Yours is the sort of logic that gets “FREE PEDICURES FOR ABANDONED PUPPIES and lots of taxpayer money for our friends in the oil/farming/construction industries” bills passed. After all, how can you possibly vote against puppies?
I imagine they have people to photoshop all the weapons of mass destruction on to surveillance shots, so computer skills aren’t exactly a Presidential pre-requisite.
Good taste in movies, too. Hey, many more gaffes like these and I’ll seriously consider voting for this McCain fella.
Yeah, who wouldn’t want a president that holds up the line at the grocery store while the checker repeatedly tells him to enter his PIN, and push the enter key.
Well, the next time the country votes for its Shopper in Chief, I shall be sure to avoid McCain. Good catch!