Originally Posted By WilliamK99 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26mon1.html?hp" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05....html?hp</a> I can't say these things, so I will let the editorial speak in my stead.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Unbelievable. He's not in favor of the bill because too many service members woud take advantage of it and improve their lives? He wants to keep them tied to the service? Military service isn't prison, Mr. Idiot President. And to ignore that this would encourage new recruits, thereby offsetting the loss of those already in? Shame on McCain for his position as well. If anyone ought to know better, it's him. I've bee drawing up my pros and cons list between McCain and Obama. The cons are getting longer on the right hand side of the ledger. Sudden off topic thought- A Webb/Hagel or Hagel/Webb ticket, this bill aside, would look very appealing.
Originally Posted By ecdc Obama has really seized on this. If he's smart enough to keep hammering on this until November, this might've just sealed McCain's fate. Bush's opposition to this is criminal. After all that he's done to our troops after he was too big of a coward to serve himself, now he won't even support them when they get home. Oh wait, I forgot, he did give up golf. My bad.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh A NY Times editorial slamming the President? What a surprise. But I'm sure it doesn't distort the facts to make the President look bad. After all, they've never done that in the past.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Funny thing is, the military was the last piece of support President Bush had, and that is eroding quickly. He very well might go down as one of the worst Presidents of our modern era. Who woulda thunk anybody would leave office with a lower approval rating than Nixon.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 What facts? The fact that the plan the President supported wasn't transferable to family members. The fact that the plan the President supported would barely cover 50% of tuition costs for a 4 year University? The President's plan did nothing to address the fact that the GI Bill is woefully dated. Once this bill becomes law, not only will it allow all soldiers serving after 9/11 4 years paid at any State University of their choice, but also allow them to transfer their benefit to families after serving 12 years. If that isn't a recuiting tool, I don't know what is. I guess because this plan to support the troops didn't include involuntary Stop Loss, President Bush was automatically against it.
Originally Posted By ecdc Please, what does WilliamK99 know about the military. What - just 'cause he's served in it? Pshaw. I for one will listen to Douglas, who knows all about the military from listening to Rush and reading National Review.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please, what does WilliamK99 know about the military. What - just 'cause he's served in it? Pshaw. I for one will listen to Douglas, who knows all about the military from listening to Rush and reading National Review.> Hey, another scarecrow argument from ecdc. That's almost as surprising as a NY Times editorial slamming President Bush.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Douglas, why do you support the President's and John McCain's plan over the plan approved by the Senate by a 75 to 22 margin?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas, why do you support the President's and John McCain's plan over the plan approved by the Senate by a 75 to 22 margin?> I didn't say I did. I haven't looked at either in any detail. I'm simply saying I don't trust a NY Times editorial to tell me what is wrong with the President's proposal, or what is right with a plan supported by Democrats.
Originally Posted By ecdc Wait, you said they distorted the facts. How would you know that if you haven't looked at them?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The plan was supported by quite a few Republicans, in fact the plan was co-sponsored by a Republican. Basically coming down to a 4 year scholarship for anyone serving 3 or more years in the military, with you being able to transfer to your child after serving 12 years.
Originally Posted By ecdc Douglas says he needs to look at the details. Translation: Rush and Hannity have Memorial Day off.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wait, you said they distorted the facts.> No, I didn't. <Douglas says he needs to look at the details. Translation: Rush and Hannity have Memorial Day off.> Wrong again, but not surprising.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (ecdc): <<<Wait, you said they distorted the facts.>>> < (DD No, I didn't.> Technically true, ecdc. DD merely suggested that the Times probably distorted the facts because, well, they're the Times. He didn't technically say they did. Weasly to be sure, but technically true. So put up or shut up time, Doug. Please read the editorial and show us where it does distort facts. If it doesn't, please be man enough to admit it doesn't. Good luck. As for me, I thought this reader comment summed it up beautifully: "To withhold opportunities ... because they know we can't afford college is a terrible way to treat us after all we are doing. " Sgt. Aaron Edwards, Baghdad"
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 It's almost like President Bush wants to put a carrot in front of the military, like we are horses, and keep us moving, keeping that carrot a safe distance away so we'll never quite reach it.... For someone who supports the troops so much, he sure doesn't want us to go to college.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So put up or shut up time, Doug. Please read the editorial and show us where it does distort facts. If it doesn't, please be man enough to admit it doesn't.> And if I do, what will you do? What's in it for me?
Originally Posted By X-san ***Douglas says he needs to look at the details. Translation: Rush and Hannity have Memorial Day off.*** OMG that was hilarious!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So put up or shut up time, Doug. Please read the editorial and show us where it does distort facts. If it doesn't, please be man enough to admit it doesn't.>> <And if I do, what will you do? What's in it for me?> The ability to show that you're man enough to admit when you're wrong. What's that worth to you? Only you can answer that.
