And the alternative, of course, is a guy who holds up the line banging on incessantly about how he hasn’t been given enough Change…
Thangyouthangyou, I’m here all week…
I didn’t say “all vets.” I said he does not believe that one enlistment is sufficient service to earn a free education even if that enlistment entails getting maimed in combat.
Using that same twisted logic, do you believe that Obama thinks that some pencil neck paper pusher should get the same benefits after 3 years of service that a combat veteran whose legs are blown off after 6 years of service? Cause the bill he voted for does. See how this works? Why does Obama hate wounded soldiers?
This whole thing is just some retarded false appeal for sympathy. You can slice the pie anyway you want. In any group ‘A’, there is a subset ‘X’ that is sympathetic.
Here’s some more examples, using your logic:
- Obama thinks crippled old people should have higher taxes. (There are crippled old people that have high incomes)
- McCain wants to cut taxes for black people. (There are plenty of high income african-americans, including Obama)
See how ludicrous this argument is?
I have a question. For someone who enters the military at age 18, serves 20 years and retires at age 38 - do they receive a college education during their service?
The sentences were designed to illustrate the faulty logic, hence pith was valued over pedantry. The point remains the same: he opposed a bill that gave one-tour vets such an entitlement regardless of whether they were injured or not. That does not mean he would necessarily oppose one giving such an entitlement specifically to those injured.
If I think Peter deserves an apple, but Paul does not, must I perforce give both of them an apple? Of course not. Equally, saying that we should not give them each an apple does not imply that I think neither deserves one.
This is really very simple.
He has expressed no so support for such an idea. All he’s done is decline his one chance to help them.
That makes no sense.
How does rewarding the paper pusher deprive the vet? The scenarios are not symmetrical.
Ignoring the rest of your retarded attempts at logic, you’re still stuck with the fact that McCain does not think wounded vets deserve a free college eduction if they have only served one enlistment. It is not a mitigating factor that he wants to chisel others along with them. Either combat vets are getting what they deserve or they are not. In McCain’s plan, they re not. Whether others get the same compensation is utterly irrelevant to the conversation. It’s incredibly fucking stupid to say that giving non-combat vets the same reward as combat vets somehow injures combat vets.
Your guy has decided to sell out wounded vets for his own self-serving political gain. Find a way to get our head around that and deal with it instead of boring me with imbecilic apologia and false analogies.
Not a pre-requisite, but don’t you think that a 21st century President shouldn’t be a self-described computer illiterate?
Sure they are. In McCain’s plan, the 6 year wounded vet got more than than the 3 year non-combat vet. Obama voted for the other plan which gave them the same. Therefore Obama deprived the wounded veterans of more incentives.
You think it’s different, solely because I changed the names around.
See, cause wounded vets fall into both categories of short term, and long term enlistments. McCain was against the short term, Obama was against the long term.
What’s so confusing? We have a volunteer army. It has to attract people to join. Part of that attraction is compensation. The question is: how high should that compensation be? The answer is that it should be as low as possible while still getting us the number of qualified people we want to join. If you disagree, could you elaborate as to why?
Actually, that makes perfect sense. If people are willing to serve for, say, $25,000 a year, why would we pay them $1,000,000 a year?
I must say, I’m leaning toward John Mace in this argudebate. Not supporting benefit X for the troops does not equal not supporting the troops. You’re doing exactly what the Republicans were (and are) doing.
Not any more than “not supporting this war” equals “not supporting any war”.
I misinterpreted what you wrote. Apologies.
Actually, that makes perfect sense. If people are willing to serve for, say, $25,000 a year, why would we pay them $1,000,000 a year?
I must say, I’m leaning toward John Mace in this argudebate. Not supporting benefit X for the troops does not equal not supporting the troops. You’re doing exactly what the Republicans were (and are) doing.
Not any more than “not supporting this war” equals “not supporting any war”.
34% of Americans did not pay federal income tax in 2004. Pretty much every American pays taxes, though.
Right, because this was the only GI bill that could ever possibly have been passed. And because the only way injured soldiers can be helped is by giving everyone entitlements. Do you even think about these things you type? The bill was not about injured soldiers; it was about all soldiers. For you to focus on one subset that could very easily be treated separately is entirely mendacious. If the goal of the bill had been to specifically benefit the injured, it would have been written that way. It was not.
By your logic, as soon as one is presented with a bill that has any sympathetic beneficiaries whatsoever, one would be obliged to support it, no matter what else it contained. I repeat: this is precisely the sort of arse-over-tit “logic” that is responsible for the egregious pork-barrel spending that infests American politics. It is the exact same logic that’s used to bash Democrats when they quibble about the latest PATRIOTIC GLORY and oil industry handouts bill. It’s intellectually bankrupt and you should be cringing as you use it.
I wouldn’t put it in my top several hundred criteria, no. It might be nice, but I don’t believe the operation of executive power requires intimate knowledge of Outlook (and thank fuck, quite frankly). I don’t see which of a President’s day-to-day tasks would be significantly enhanced by his being online, nor do I believe that computer literacy to the level of web browsing and emailing informs one sufficiently to deal with legislative issues. It’s perfectly possible to understand such issues without using a computer oneself; some of my better CS lecturers were completely at sea when confronted with an actual computer. I certainly don’t see why being a “self-described” computer illiterate makes it any worse; would we rather he were clandestinely inept?
Plus, if George Bush hadn’t been spending his time trying to “get” lolcats for the last couple of years then maybe the country would be in a much better state now. Hmm … actually perhaps it was for the best.
And Obama, as president, would only have authority to cut federal taxes. He can’t cut property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
No. McCain’s plan does not give long-term vets any more than the Webb bill. It just gives one-time enlistees less. Please try to do some research before you pop off.
Right, but federal taxes of one sort or another are built into virtually every commercial transaction that takes place in the country.