| # | Author | Message |
1
| WilliamK99
Mon 5/26/2008 6:54a | http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05....html?hp
I can't say these things, so I will let the editorial speak in my stead. |
2
| SingleParkPassholder
Mon 5/26/2008 8:03a | 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. |
3
| ecdc
Mon 5/26/2008 9:32a | 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. |
4
| DouglasDubh
Mon 5/26/2008 10:10a | 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. |
5
| WilliamK99
Mon 5/26/2008 10:11a | 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. |
6
| WilliamK99
Mon 5/26/2008 10:16a | 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. |
7
| ecdc
Mon 5/26/2008 10:30a | 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. |
8
| SuperDry
Mon 5/26/2008 10:35a | ^^^ :-) |
9
| DouglasDubh
Mon 5/26/2008 10:48a | <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. |
10
| WilliamK99
Mon 5/26/2008 10:51a | 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? |
