Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Bush Would Be First President To Veto Benefits for Troops
thinkprogress.org — No president in history has vetoed a benefits bill for those who served. … The Republican party is on the block here, to clearly demonstrate that they value military service or suffer the consequences of losing the support of people who’ve served. … The president has a choice here to show how much he values military service.
JawnDisease- 153 diggs
- digg it
- GrandmaSheila, on 05/18/2008, -5/+45Let's see, we're talking about the Neocon junta that sent them into war with inferior equipment, poisons them with germ infested water, charges them for body armor, sends them for multiple tours of duty whether injured or not, slams the wounded into pest-house hospitals unfit for anything but vermin to inhabit, and refuses to end the illegal warcrime, and bring them home, among other things. When confronted with the body count, Darth Cheney shrugs and states, "They volunteered for this", while his sock puppet pretends to "sacrifice" his golf games to show his "solidarity" with them.
Anybody who believes these people "care" about "the troops" other than as cannon fodder for the meat grinder of their endless wars for empire, is a fool. Perhaps when the incoherent sociopath vetoes the bill for GI benefits, the sheeple will finally face up to this.
Meanwhile, our children continue to be slaughtered and maimed for BushCo's stock portfolios, and absolute power. Don't expect the junta to be inclined to share the largesse stolen from us, with the troops or anyone else.- freedomwv, on 05/19/2008, -3/+13Well said. The Neo-Cons only care about war and not the effects which war has on those who actually have to go out and fight the war.
- rugrat54, on 05/19/2008, -3/+11Dont forget about the Depleted Uranium
- mntalkase, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1... and Poland.
- masterspeaks, on 05/19/2008, -8/+21Isn’t it obvious what’s going on? If we help soldiers get higher education which they would otherwise be unable to afford, that would not only strengthen their knowledge and move more away from the GOP, it would mean their children would be much more likely to have a good education and go to college.
- rugrat54, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8Im digging you down for the inclination that the two party system is anything other than a ONE party dictatorship.
They're both screwing us and making quite a lot of money from it...- aliengoods, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3I remember hearing that "both parties are the same" ***** back in 2000. Then Bush won. You'd think after 8 years of him people would realize the parties aren't the same.
- keithgplayer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12If that was the case then the newly elected Democratic Congress would of overturned all the Bush BS by now, right? They are all just the right and left hand of the same monster.
- aliengoods, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3I remember hearing that "both parties are the same" ***** back in 2000. Then Bush won. You'd think after 8 years of him people would realize the parties aren't the same.
- oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5I'm digging you down for implying that soldiers aren't educated or that somehow education is tied to political party affiliation. Its nearly a tie when it comes to education levels.
Plus people need to get away from this "my party" is better *****. They both suck. Neither party is moving us towards a brighter future. Both are complacent and stale. We need real change and that means more parties.
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/sta ...
- rugrat54, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8Im digging you down for the inclination that the two party system is anything other than a ONE party dictatorship.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/19/2008, -8/+9Historically speaking people who go to college or University tend to vote Democrat and not Republican.
People might get angry when they hear that, but you have to at least wonder why this is this case. The Democrats don't have propaganda outlets setup in schools, so it might be that these people figured out that the GOP mainly supports large corporations at the national level. - orientis, on 05/19/2008, -5/+16My flatmate just said "***** America! They use their people up like the English did a hundred years ago. And they get nothing for it! Worst thing is, some of them like it!"
The world is ***** right now. I'm moving out of the city and sticking my head in the sand for a few years.- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Thanks for the news from the outpost of Londonistan.
- orientis, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I'm in Australia, jerk. We are taught about what happens in other countries, you know. I probably know more about your country's history than you do, so stfu and gbtw.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Thanks for the news from the outpost of Londonistan.
- PlagueOfMorons, on 05/19/2008, -4/+9Well, Bush understands military service so well, what with his many combat missions. So who are soldiers to complain about getting shafted. Whiners, the whole lot of them. They understood when they signed up what they were getting into. They weren't going to get to play golf and vacation on a ranch in Texas half the time.
Who do these peasant ingrates think they are? They should be grateful they're being burned alive by IEDs and having their jaws shot off, instead of being in prison for selling weed. They need to respect their betters, who know the real horrors of war because they see it on TV in the White House. - jana67, on 05/19/2008, -12/+12I am a Conservative Republican and I support Ron Paul. I am so sick and tired of Bush's BS!
- MasterThief117, on 05/19/2008, -7/+9Give it up with Ron Paul already. He is NOT going to win. It is impossible.
- cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3Which explains why his book is a #1 best seller, right?
LMAO@U!!!- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6No, that just explains that most Paulbots have a little cash left after their super awesome money bombz.
- onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5...are you seriously trying to imply that because his book sold a lot of copies, it means he still has enough support to win? What are you smoking?
Wait, you're the guy who suggested that the government shouldn't infringe upon our right to bring guns on airplanes, right?
- cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3Which explains why his book is a #1 best seller, right?
- onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -4/+6The same "fiscal conservative" who has the highest earmarks-per-capita ratio of any candidate?
The same "fiscal conservative" who pissed away over 30 million dollars on failed campaign advertising?
The same "fiscal conservative" who is taking his supporter's left over money and using it to start a for-profit publishing venture?
Oh yeah, I forgot about him.- reed311, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4These are the types of logical fallacies that these people deal in.
Another good example would be during the early part of the campaign when they said: "95% of America uses the Internet and Ron Paul is the most popular on the Internet, therefore Ron Paul is the most popular candidate overall."
- reed311, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4These are the types of logical fallacies that these people deal in.
- cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3The same fiscal conservative who votes consistently with the Constitution and the same man who has a #1 best seller and the same man whose earmarks were mainly for maintenance on federal properties followed by programs for needy patients.
Your lies don't turn into the truth because you repeat them.
- MasterThief117, on 05/19/2008, -7/+9Give it up with Ron Paul already. He is NOT going to win. It is impossible.
- AlwaysAwake, on 05/19/2008, -4/+8Bush's bosses in the NWO consider us all vermin, including soldiers and veterans; "things" to be used, and cast aside , when no longer useful. We are all just unimportant, troublesome "mouths" to them, soon to be starved to death in the coming artificially created, but very real food shortage now circling the planet. This will eliminate those of us who somehow manage to survive WW III, now being initiated with an attack on Iran.
- oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Who are the bosses? Can you provide their names?
- kemp34, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3Here is the 2008 Trilateral Commission List:
TRILATERAL COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Thomas S. Foley North American Chairman
Peter Sutherland European Chairman
Yotaro Kobayashi Pacific Asia Chairman
Allan E. Gotlieb North American Deputy Chairman
Herve De Carmoy European Deputy Chairman
Han Sung-Joo Pacific Asia Deputy Chairman
Lorenzo H. Zamibrano North American Deputy Chairman
Ainijrzej Olechowski European Deputy Chairman
Shijuro Ogata Pacific Asia Deputy Chairman
David Rockefeller Founder And Honorary Chairman
Paul A. Volcker North American Honorary Chairman
Georges Berthoin Chairman European Honorary
Otto Graf Lambsdorf European Honorary Chairman
Michael J. O’Neil North American Director
Paul Revay European Director
Tadashi Yamamoto Pacific Asia Director
NORTH AMERICAN GROUP
Madeleine K Albright The Albright Group LLC Washington, D.C.
Graham Allison Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Cambridge, Mass.
Richard L. Armitage Armitage International Washington, D.C.
James L. Balsillie Co-Chief Exec. Officer, Research in Motion Waterloo, Ontario
Charlene Barshefsky Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering Washington, D.C.
Alan R. Batkin Eton Park Capital Management New York, N.Y.
Lael Brainard The Brookings Institution Washington, D.C.
Doug Bereuter The Asia Foundation San Francisco.
C. Fred Bergsten Peterson Institute for Int’l Economics Washington, D.C.
Catherine Bertini Syracuse University Syracuse, N.Y.
Robert D. Blackwill Former Deputy Asst, to the President Washington D.C.
Dennis Blair, USN (Ret.) Institute for Defense Analyses Alexandria, Va.
H. Blanco Mendoza Private Office of Herminio Blanco Mexico City
Stephen W. Bosworth Dean, Tufts University Medford, Mass.
David G. Bradley Atlantic Media Company Washington, D.C.
Harold Brown Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies Washington, D.C.
Zbigniew Brzezinski Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies Washington, D.C.
Sylvia Mathews Burwell President Global Development Program Hinton, WV
Louis C. Camilleri Altria Group, Inc New York, N.Y.
Kurt Campbell CEO Center New American Security Washington, D.C.
Raymond Chrétien Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Montreal, Quebec
William T. Coleman III Cassatt Corporation San Jose, Calif.
Timothy C. Collins Ripplewood Holdings New York, N.Y.
Richard N. Cooper Harvard University Cambridge, Mass.
F. Gerald Corrigan Goldman, Sachs & Co. New York, N.Y.
Michael J. Critelli Pitney Bowes Inc. Stamford, Conn.
Lee Cullum “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” Dallas, Texas
H. Lawrence Culp, Jr CEO of Danaher Washington, D.C.
Gerald L. Curtis Columbia University New York, N.Y.
Douglas Daft The Coca Cola Company Atlanta, Ga.
Lynn Davis The RAND Corporation Arlington, Va.
Arthur A. DeFehr Palliser Furniture Winnipeg
André Desmarais Power Corporation of Canada Montréal, Quebec
John M. Deutch Mass. Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass.
Jamie Dimon JP Morgan Chase & Co. New York, N.Y.
Peter C. Dobell Parliamentary Centre Ottawa, Ontario
Wendy K Dobson University of Toronto Toronto
Kenneth M. Duberstein The Duberstein Group Washington, D.C.
Robert Eckert Mattel, Inc. El Segundo, Calif.
Jessica P. Einhorn The Johns Hopkins University Washington, D.C.
Jeffrey Epstein J. Epstein & Company, Inc. New York, N.Y.
Dianne Feinstein U.S. Senate (D-Calif.) Washington, D.C.
Martin S. Feldstein Harvard University Cambridge, Mass.
Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. Swiss Re America Holding Corp. Washington, D.C.
Stanley Fischer Bank of Israel; frmr president, Citigroup New York, N.Y.
Richard W. Fisher Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Dallas, Texas
Thomas S. Foley Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Washington, D.C.
Kristin J. Forbes Associate Prof. of Int’l Management Cambridge Mass.
Michael B.G. Froman Citigroup Inc. New York, N.Y.
Francis Fukuyama The Johns Hopkins University Washington, D.C.
Dionisio Garza Medina ALFA Mexico
Richard A. Gephardt Former member House of Reps. (D-Mo.) Washington, D.C.
David Gergen Harvard; Editor, USN&WR Cambridge, Mass.
Peter C. Godsoe Scotiabank (ret.) Toronto, Ontario
Allan E. Gotlieb Bennett Jones LLP Toronto, Ontario
Bill Graham Canadian House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario
Donald E. Graham CEO of The Washington Post Company Washington, D.C.
Jeffrey W. Greenberg Aquiline Capital Partners, LLC New York, N.Y.
Richard N. Haass President, Council on Foreign Relations New York, N.Y.
James T. Hackett Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Texas
John J. Hamre Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies Washington, D.C.
William A. Haseltine Haseltine Global Health, LLC Washington, D.C.
Richard F. Haskayne University of Calgary Alberta
Charles B. Heck Senior Adviser, Trilateral Commission Washington, D.C.
Carlos Heredia International Affairs Mexico
Carla A. Hills Hills & Company, Int’l Consultants Washington, D.C.
Richard Holbrooke Perseus LLC New York, N.Y.
Karen Elliott House Dow Jones & Co. & Wall Street Journal Princeton, N.J.
Alej. Junco de la Vega Grupo Reforma Monterrey, Mexico
Robert Kagan Carnegie Endowment for Int’l Peace Washington, D.C.
Arnold Kanter The Scowcroft Group Washington, D.C.
Charles R. Kaye Warburg Pincus LLC New York, N.Y.
James Kimsey Founding CEO of AOL Washington, D.C.
Michael Klein Citigroup Inc. New York, N.Y.
Steven E. Koonin British Petroleum London
Enrique Krauze Editorial Clio Libros y Videos, S.A. de C.V. Mexico City
Robert Lane Deere & Company Moline, Ill.
Fred Langhammer The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. New York, N.Y.
Jim Leach Former U.S. Representative (R-IA) Washington, D.C.
Gerald M. Levin AOL Time Warner, Inc. New York, N.Y.
Winston Lord International Rescue Committee New York, N.Y.
E. Peter Lougheed Bennett Jones, Banisters & Solicitors Calgary, Alberta
Roy MacLaren Former High Commissioner to the UK Toronto, Ontario
John A. MacNaughton Frmr CEO Canada Pension Plan Invest. Brd Toronto, Ontario
Antonio Madero San Luis Corporacion, S.A. de C.V. Mexico
John Manley McCarthy Tétrault LLP Ottawa, Ontario
Sir Deryck C. Maughan KKR Asia, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. New York, N.Y.
Jay Mazur Union of Needletrades, Textile Employees New York, N.Y.
James Moore Canadian Parliament Ottawa, Ontario
Marc H. Morial National Urban League New York, N.Y.
Heather Munroe-Blum McGill University Montreal, Quebed
Brian Mulroney Ogilvy Renault Montréal, Quebec
Indra K. Nooyi PepsiCo, Inc. Purchase, N.Y.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Cambridge, Mass.
David J. O’Reilly Chevron Corporation San Ramon, Calif.
Meghan O’Sullivan Former Deputy National Security Adviser Washington, D.C.
Richard N. Perle American Enterprise Institute Washington, D.C.
Thomas R. Pickering Consultant, The Boeing Company Arlington, Va.
Martha C. Piper The University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C.
Richard Plepler Executive Vice President, HBO New York, N.Y.
Joe Ralston, USAF (Ret) The Cohen Group Washington, D.C.
Charles B. Rangel U.S. House of Representatives (D-N.Y.) Washington, D.C.
Susan Rice Brookings Institution Washington, D.C.
Hartley Richardson James Richardson & Sons, Ltd. Winnipeg, Manitoba
Joseph E. Robert, Jr. J.E. Robert Companies McLean, Va.
John D. Rockefeller IV U.S. Senate (D-W.V.) Washington, D.C.
Kenneth Rogoff Center for Int’l Development, Harvard Cambridge, Mass.
Charles Rose The Charlie Rose Show, PBS New York, N.Y.
Irene B. Rosenfeld CEO Kraft Foods Northfield, Ill
Dennis Ross Ambassador Counselor and Ziegler Washington, D.C.
David M. Rubenstein The Carlyle Group Washington, D.C.
Luis Rubio Center of Research for Development Mexico City, Mexico
Arthur F. Ryan Prudential Financial, Inc. Newark, N.J.
Jaime Serra SAI Consulting Mexico City, Mexico
Dinakar Singh TPG-Axon Capital New York, N.Y.
Anne-Marie Slaughter Princeton University Princeton, N.J.
Gordon Smith Centre for Global Studies, U. of Victoria Victoria, B.C.
Donald R. Sobey Empire Company Ltd. Halifax, Nova Scotia
Ronald D. Southern ATCO Group Calgary, Alberta
James B. Steinberg LBJ School of Public Affairs, U. of Texas Austin, Texas
Jessica Stern Program on Terrorism & the Law, Harvard Cambridge, Mass.
Barbara Stymiest RBC Financial Group Toronto, Ontario
Lawrence H. Summers Harvard University Cambridge, Mass.
John J. Sweeney AFL-CIO Washington, D.C.
Strobe Talbott The Brookings Institution Washington, D.C.
George J. Tenet Georgetown Univ., former CIA Director Washington, D.C.
John Thain New York Stock Exchange, Inc. New York, N.Y.
G. Richard Thoman Columbia University New York, N.Y.
Paul A. Volcker Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., frmr Fed. Res. Chair.New York, N.Y.
William H. Webster Former CIA Director Washington, D.C.
Fareed Zakaria Newsweek International New York, N.Y.
Lorenzo H. Zambrano CEMEX Monterey, Mexico
Ernesto Zedillo Former president of Mexico; Yale Univ. New Haven, Conn.
Mortimer B. Zuckerman Chairman, U.S. News & World Report New York, N.Y.
William T. Coleman, Jr. Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission Washington, D.C.
Henry A. Kissinger Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission Washington, D.C.
Robert S. McNamara Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission,
frmr pres., World Bank; frmr sec.of Defense; frmr pres., Ford Motor. Washington, D.C.
David Rockefeller Founder, Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Comm. New York, N.Y.
NEW TRILATERAL MEMBERS ATTENDING FROM EUROPE
Patricia Barbizet CEO Artemis Group, France
Dermot Gleeson Chairman, AIB Group, Ireland
Elisabeth Guigou French National Assembly, France
Nigel Higgins Senior Partner N M Rohschild & Sons, UK
Jerzy Kozminski President & CEO Polish-American Freedom, Poland
Thomas Leysen CEO Umicore, Belgium
Manfred Bischoff Chairman, SNCF, France
Arpad Kovacs Pres. State Audit Office Hungary, Budapest
Friedrich Merz Member of the German Bundestag, Germany
Pietro Modiano Mng. Director CEO Intesa Sanpaolo, Italy
Hans Reisenhuber (returning) Member of the German Bundestag, Germany
Jeroen van der Veer Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell, The Netherlands- oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I asked who Bushes bosses at the NWO were. He can't report to ALL of those people...
- kemp34, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3Here is the 2008 Trilateral Commission List:
- Chassit, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Uhh, NWO....I call *****.
- oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Who are the bosses? Can you provide their names?
- DaDrake, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10"The revision to GI benefits caused a rift among Democrats last week - so much so that it delayed debate until yesterday - because some Democrats didn't like that there was no plan to pay for the better benefits, which Congress estimates would cost up to $50 billion over 10 years."
"Democrats have devised a complicated procedure for considering the measure in which lawmakers would be forced to vote on three components: the war funding, Democratic policy language restricting war operations, and a package of domestic add-ons like unemployment insurance and the increase in education benefits for veterans"
It's amazing how think-progressive leaves out those pesky little facts. - diggstown, on 05/19/2008, -0/+14Embedded in one of the links:
"But the White House promptly threatened to veto the bill because it would impose an income tax surcharge on wealthy Americans to finance the veterans benefits."
All of a sudden, we're not just talking about the troops. We're also talking about raising taxes.- swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4Raising taxes to pay for increased spending? That's irresponsible! If we were talking about increasing spending and cutting taxes, now that's something Bush and the GOP could get behind.
- diggstown, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3The point is that you can't just say "Bush doesn't want to give the troops benefits". Statements like that trivialize the complexity of these bills.
Perhaps it would make more of an impression on you if the link had said:
"And the White House promptly agreed to approve the bill because it would only impose an income tax surcharge on swrostmore and swrostmore's extended family to finance the veterans benefits."
What, that would bother you?- swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1It wouldn't bother me at all, because I believe Vets deserve benefits, and I'm not naive enough to think that we can give Vets benefits without paying for them.
- diggstown, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2@swrostmore:
lies
- diggstown, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3The point is that you can't just say "Bush doesn't want to give the troops benefits". Statements like that trivialize the complexity of these bills.
- swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4Raising taxes to pay for increased spending? That's irresponsible! If we were talking about increasing spending and cutting taxes, now that's something Bush and the GOP could get behind.
- MasterThief117, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1Bush's approval ratings are less than 30. I can't believe how any person can condone the ***** bush is doing.
The people who condone Bush's actions need to drop dead. They are no use for this country, and are in fact ruining it.- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Ever wonder what the approval ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress are, genius?
18.7%
That's eighteen point seven percent.
That's 11.3% less than Bush.
In other words, they would kill for a 30% approval rating. I think it's obvious who's really "ruining" things.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Ever wonder what the approval ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress are, genius?
- cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3Many presidents have promised benefits for veterans and then failed to deliver. The first was George Washington who had war veterans camped in DC to try to get the benefits they were promised and the pay they were owed.
As a veteran I can tell you with complete confidence that even if this is passed there will likely be few who will qualify because the government operates that way. They promised that if we retired from the Armed Forces we would have our medical and our families medical care taken care of for free.
Ask any retiree how that worked out.
- chester27, on 05/19/2008, -6/+3But guys! It's okay - he gave up golf, remember?
- jeremyduffy, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Eh, without looking at the bill, it's too early to say this was a bad move. Maybe this is the first time in history that they are offering too much to those that served. Who knows.
I'd be far more interested in the first president in history to veto EVERY SINGLE BILL that contained any port legislation on the grounds that it's akin to fraud to attach small, unrelated expenses to large bills only to get them passed. - justinx0r, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7The Republicans just voted present on this bill instead of nay. Bush is going to veto it because it includes tax increases, increased spending on social programs, etc. They know that Bush would veto it - they're just doing it to be able to attack Bush as someone who doesn't want to fund the troops. You can agree with Bush or not but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are just playing politics in order to gain more support (I'm not saying that Republicans don't also).
- swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -7/+2Every Republican voted "present" and you're saying DEMOCRATS are playing politics? Jesus! How ***** stupid are Cons in America?
- diggstown, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6Everyone's playing politics. There are better ways to vent your frustration than to call names.
- justinx0r, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Here, Roy Blunt had this to say: "The Democrats knew that this would not be a bill signed into law. It was designed to be a package that used the troops to do other spending that they know they can't get done without the troops.
Republican members voted present on that section of the bill. We then demonstrated we had the veto-sustaining strength that everybody knew we had on the other two sections of the bill."
That's why they voted present instead of getting drawn into a political game. Apparently you are the one who is uneducated.- swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3Roy Blunt was one of Abramoff's (lobbyist convicted of bribing Republicans) buddies. He's a corrupt swine who knows all about "political games," especially when those games result in large sums of money being "donated" to his political action committees.
- justinx0r, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5@swrostmore
Straw man. - swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4There are two definitions for "straw man" in Merriam-webster's online dictionary. The cliche'd definition commonly used in online debates is :
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
I'm not sure why you bring this up, it doesn't seem to have any relevance. Unless you mean that Roy Blunt's declaration that "the Democrats knew that this would not be a bill signed into law" is a straw man, in which case I might agree with you.
The second definition is more relevant to Blunt's dealings with Abramoff and the disgraced GOP majority leader Tom Delay:
2. a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction
So what is "justinx0r" really referring to? Is it Roy Blunt's imaginary position that he attributes to the Democrats? Or is it a reference to Blunt's questionable transactions with Abramoff and Tom Delay?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strawman - justinx0r, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Do I seriously have to explain to you what a straw man argument is? Straight from Wikipedia:
"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y"
That is exactly what you did. I'm not going to bother to respond to any more of your posts unless you actually refute what I said. Thank you.
- FREETHINKER2008, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Both parties suck
- swrostmore, on 05/19/2008, -7/+2Every Republican voted "present" and you're saying DEMOCRATS are playing politics? Jesus! How ***** stupid are Cons in America?
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8While Webb and his supporters have their heart in the right place, their bill will cost billions to implement with most of that money going to create a new level of beaurocracy and not going to soldiers. Meanwhile John McCain and Lindsey Graham have a competing bill (strangely not mentioned in the article) that will increase GI bill benefits without the need to create new taxes and bigger government.
http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/presscenter/blogitem ...
(Washington DC) Vets for Freedom urges Senate members to work together to pass a GI Bill that not only addresses the immediate need for increased financial and educational benefits, but that also takes into account the unique dynamics of today’s all-volunteer force. The US military is working hard to increase its ranks in order to meet strategic needs across the globe; and as a result, it is imperative that recruitment and retention are both addressed as part of any GI Bill.
The Webb Bill correctly recognizes the rising costs of secondary education, and the importance of pegging yearly benefit increases to educational inflation indices, rather than the Consumer Price Index, which would require Congress to revisit the issue in a few years. The Webb Bill also allows for the accrual of Active Duty benefits for Reservists and National Guardsmen, many of which have seen repeated deployments.
On the other hand, the McCain-Graham Bill substantially increases monthly educational benefits and could be implemented immediately; while the Webb Bill would take over a year to implement and would require a new layer of Pentagon bureaucracy. The McCain-Graham Bill also rewards troops who remain in the military, providing strong incentives for our best and brightest to continue their service and support a growing force.
“Both the Webb and McCain-Graham bills have valuable aspects that address the needs of our military and our men and women in uniform.” said Pete Hegseth, Executive Director of Vets for Freedom. “Vets for Freedom trusts that those involved will work toward a compromise to integrate the best aspects of both bills, and ensure its passage and implementation in a timely manner.”
Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American military strategy. For more information, please visit www.vetsforfreedom.org- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Yes I know I spelled bureaucracy wrong, but I can't get the edit function to work. Does Digg QA any of their ***** before going live?
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5I post a comment, and it disappears, then shows up on the page later. Not every time, just like every third post. ***** spelling! All you need is the first and last letter of the word correct. You can jumble the ***** out of the rest, and people can still read it
The porof is in the pudidng...- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3thx
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5I post a comment, and it disappears, then shows up on the page later. Not every time, just like every third post. ***** spelling! All you need is the first and last letter of the word correct. You can jumble the ***** out of the rest, and people can still read it
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Yes I know I spelled bureaucracy wrong, but I can't get the edit function to work. Does Digg QA any of their ***** before going live?
- cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2The Democrats know that they have little support among the troops. They are trotting out an election year scam to try to get support. It isn't working.
Oh, and to the person who claimed that retaining my right to be secure and keep and bear arms when I travel was insane, you must be very young. All through the sixties we were permitted to carry guns aboard an airplane and nothing happened except the hijacking of planes to Cuba ended.
You really are naive.
Freedom works. - Niteryder, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Growing up in a military family myself, I find Mr Bush to
be a very disrespectful person to our military.
He has the title command in chief, however,
he acts more like chump in charge.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by