What is Digg?317 Comments
- SheilaNoya, on 05/24/2008, -17/+103If you want to see John McCain really explode, just confront him in front of the press and ask him about the time his wife, Cindy McCain, got busted for stealing narcotics from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs ... - BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/24/2008, -17/+64McCain is nothing more than a political whore. He failed in 2000 as the outsider candidate, so he's running as the establishment man now.
I'd like to think that Americans would see through this *****. But this is the same country that elected, then re-elected George Bush, so forgive me for being less than optimistic. - dranfu, on 05/24/2008, -17/+58Yeah, well if McCain actually believed any of that nonsense he was talking, he would be supporting the efforts--BIPARTISAN EFFORTS-- to get more money for GI's. Instead, he's falling quickly into the Washington republican mindset, which is to basically give millions and billions of subsidies to Huge, filthy rich corporations that don't need it, and to siphon off funds from regular Americans who actually need it,
IM NOT FALLING FOR IT MCCAIN. I'm voting for Obama!!! - gypsi, on 05/24/2008, -12/+45what's sad is that this man at one time had some measure of character, but completely sold out for one last stab at "power". how f*cking sad is that.
- RockeN5, on 05/24/2008, -0/+32I don't understand why you are being burried. While I don't like McCain, I'm tired of seeing these sensationalist headlines and bigot articles on Digg. I suppose most digg users are too ignorant to realize that articles like this are left-wing propaganda - folks, we're starting to throw mud around like the Clinton campaign.
- PiGuy, on 05/24/2008, -20/+49Unsurprisingly, this article manages to leave out half of McCain's response, specifically the part that mentions McCain has his own bill that he supports, one that provides a sliding scale of benefits so those who have served longer get additional benefits. This provides incentives for the troops to serve for longer periods of time. It's completely asanine to insuinitate McCain doesn't support the troops.
Here's his full statement:
It is typical, but no less offensive that Sen. Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Sen. Obama, running for president is different than serving as president. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Sen. Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.
I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.
The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.
Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.
Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election. - inactive, on 05/24/2008, -16/+43I'm a little fuzzy how this shows McCain's temper, which is legendary (as is Bill Clinton's and other former presidents). This is pretty standard Senate floor rhetoric. Obama says McCain doesn't care about the Veterans, McCain replies that he's not going to take that from a guy who never served (and, I will add, does not have children in Iraq), and says what he wants is to debate the issue, based on its provisions.
I'm very interested in what McCain offers as an alternative and hope he gets it out there well and quickly. - AyaJulia, on 05/24/2008, -2/+21Gotta be honest, even though I fully agree with Obama's point of view on this one.... I don't see where McCain "exploded." Maybe it was different watching it on CSPAN, but the written text really doesn't look that bad at all. >.>
- ZenMojo, on 05/24/2008, -1/+20Which is why John McCain said that Michelle Obama is fair game, naturally.
- thirdcoastborn, on 05/24/2008, -0/+18I agree. I used to like McCain. I wouldn't vote for him but I liked him for his character. But like you said, he sold out just to get the republican nomination. No longer the Straight Talk Express but the Double Talk Express. ***** sell out.
- lordcrimmeh, on 05/24/2008, -5/+22So let me get this straight.... Obama is not a veteran, so even though he supports the GI bill.... he hates veterans.
...what? - BananaGrabber, on 05/24/2008, -3/+15ballistic? what the hell are you talking about? That was a completely reasonable response to criticism. He didn't sound angry in any way. When Obama responds to criticism, the other guy is always the bad guy. Now it's the other way around. This sheep mentality people have digg is embarrassing to the democratic party. The worst part is that people are actually digging down that guy who posted the full response with his approach to helping out veterans, which is completely reasonable.
I'm actually a democrat, but it still doesn't change how stupid this is. - inactive, on 05/24/2008, -11/+23I'd be pissed too if Congress was trying to railroad a spending measure through by attaching it to another one that funds troop supplies. Knowing that those who opposed the measure would be called unpatriotic if they dared voted to block it. Especially if I'd authored my own bill with much of the same rhetoric, all while having a cheaper cost to the taxpayers, but that nobody wants to even allow for a debate on.
- Sogui, on 05/24/2008, -3/+15Cindy McCain founded the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT).It was a non-profit organization that organized trips for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel to provide MASH-like emergency medical care to disaster-struck or war-torn third-world areas such as Micronesia, Vietnam (before relations were normalized between them and the U.S.), Kuwait (arriving five days after the conclusion of the Gulf War), Iraq, Nicaragua, India, Bangladesh and El Salvador. She led 55 of these missions over the next seven years, with each being of at least two weeks' duration. AVMT also supplied treatment to poor sick children around the world.
While at Mother Teresa's orphanage in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in 1991 — as part of AVMT's assistance team following the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone— she met two infant girls she decided needed to be brought to the United States for medical treatment. She decided to adopt one of the girls (her husband readily agreeing), later named Bridget (who became the McCains' fourth child together), and helped coordinate the adoption of the other little girl, named Mickey, for Wes Gullett, a family friend.In 1993, Cindy McCain and the AVMT were honored with an award from Food for the Hungry.
She became actively involved with Operation Smile in 2001, taking parts in trips with it to Morocco, Vietnam, and India. She was honored by the organization in 2005, and sits on its board of directors. She joined the board of directors of CARE in 2005. She is on the board of the HALO Trust, and has visited operations to remove landmines in Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, and Angola. She makes financial contributions to these organizations via her family trust, and views her role on in them as watching them in the field and to ensure they are frugal and their money is being spent effectively.
But hey, she stole some painkillers, so let's go ahead and burn her at the stake while we're here. - brainpile3000, on 05/24/2008, -4/+16If we are playing by Obama rules, no attacking wives.
Come on! You should know better by now. - Sogui, on 05/24/2008, -3/+14Just going to play the devil's advocate here:
Obama Voted Against The FY 2007 Iraq Emergency Spending Bill That Provided Nearly $1.8 Billion For Veterans Medical Care. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay; House And Senate Committees On Appropriations, “Summary Of The Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Funding Legislation,” Press Release, 5/24/07)
Obama Voted Against The FY 2007 Iraq Emergency Spending Bill That Provided Nearly $1.8 Billion For Veterans Medical Care, Including:
* $595 million for medical facilities
* $228.982 million in additional funds to treat OEF/OIF veterans
* $20 million for vet centers and re-adjustment counseling
* $30 million to establish at least one new Level I comprehensive polytrauma center
* $9.4 million for operations costs associated with the establishment of new polytrauma residential transitional rehabilitation programs
* $10 million for additional transition caseworkers to work with separating veterans and their families
* $10 million for rehabilitation programs for vision impaired veterans
* $100 million for enhancements to mental health services
* $20 million for substance abuse treatment programs
* $8 million for polytrauma clinic support teams
* $25 million for prosthetics
* $250 million for the administration of the VA health care system
* $32.5 million for medical and prosthetic research
* $83.2 million for general operating expenses
* $326 million in construction funding for VA-identified needs
(H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay; House And Senate
Committees On Appropriations, “Summary Of The Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Funding Legislation,” Press Release, 5/24/07)
In The Senate, Obama Previously Talked Of His Support For Funding For Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan:
“‘I Think That Nobody Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops On The Ground,’ Said Obama.” (Mike Glover, “Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Expected Bush Veto,” The Associated Press, 4/1/07)
* Obama: “[W]hat You Don’t Want To Do Is To Play Chicken With The President, And Create A Situation In Which, Potentially, You Don’t Have Body Armor, You Don’t Have Reinforced Humvees, You Don’t Have Night-Vision Goggles.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 3/28/07)
Obama: “I know nobody in Congress, Republican or Democrat, who is going to in any way strand troops who are presently in Iraq. We’ve got to make sure that they have all the resources necessary to come home safely and to execute the missions that have been laid out for them.” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
Obama Later Voted Against Funding, And Promised Not To Fund Troops In Iraq In The Future:
Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
Obama Voted Against $70 Billion In Emergency Iraq Funding. (S. 2340, CQ Vote #410: Rejected 45-53: R 44-3; D 0-49; I 1-1, 11/16/07, Obama Voted Nay) - brad3378, on 05/24/2008, -2/+13I was hoping to see a video of a McCain meltdown.
- AWBoy666, on 05/24/2008, -2/+12I actually thought McCain had a point. He didn't agree with the bill as it was written and he had a difference in opinion that Obama used to say he didn't respect GIs. That's a pretty mean statement by Obama and McCain deserved to get a shot back. And an eloquent one if I may.
- enki25, on 05/24/2008, -4/+14From Markos:
"McCain's pathetic alternate would've boosted the current $1,200 in monthly educational benefits to $2,000, but only after 12 years of service. Those given 3-6 years of their life in service to their nation deserved nothing, according to McCain." - Lymphocyte, on 05/24/2008, -2/+12I agree knumbknuts. I'm a huge Obama supporter and have been pre-Iowa, however, I don't see McCain's response as 'losing his temper'. I thought this arguement was very well put together and quite informative. I fact, having read a bit about the bill after this story reached the front page, I'm thinking that he may be correct on some aspects of this issue.
Just because I support Obama doesn't mean that I support all of Obama's views or think that all of McCain's views are wrong. This story goes against everything Obama talks about - we need to stop the us vs. them mentality and start working together for the good of the country. - funkyloki, on 05/24/2008, -8/+17That ***** picture rox. He looks like he's gonna give himself an aneurysm. At his age, he needs to watch his blood pressure. If he keeps that up, we may end up with Ron Paul for the nominee after all.
- Temo1, on 05/24/2008, -0/+9As a McCain supporter (who doesn't hate Obama), I'd have to mention that these kinds of lists are kinda not fair either. As a politician, I would hope that you would vote down a bill that has is not good for the whole even if some parts have good intentions.
- thirdcoastborn, on 05/24/2008, -5/+14once a drug addict, always a drug addict
- exomni, on 05/24/2008, -2/+11Umm... this article is pathetic. McCain didn't explode at all, not in that transcript.
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -6/+14But Obamas comments towards him, that started this whole mess, from the Senate floor, no less, are completely necessary?
Why do you people think it's perfectly A-OK for Obama to make dirty low attacks, while it's completely unacceptable to reply? - Joshuarr, on 05/24/2008, -8/+16Don't you find it odd, and a bit sad, that this guy doesn't want to support the american troops as fully as possible? Notice that he doesn't defend his position or propose a better alternative, instead of making this an argument about how to best repay our soldiers, he is turning this into an attack on a guy who is saying that all veterans should get compensated with a free ride through college. What a sellout.
- ileftfark, on 05/24/2008, -3/+11Did anyone actually read McCain's rebuttal? His response was well thought-out, coherent, and didn't take any "cheap shots". Whether you agree with it or not is up to you, but if you call that indicative of a "hot temper", I shudder to think what you may encounter outside the depths of your blanket-and-pillow fortress you've built out of the couch cushions.
I can't stand McCain personally, but this is seriously inaccurate. - DaDrake, on 05/24/2008, -0/+8Everyone knows it politics.... if you read McCain's bill, it is much more sensible since it ACTUALLY INCLUDES FUNDING.
Call be some right-wing nut job... but I think bills should have a way to pay for themselfs. It seems like congress couldn't balance a checkbook. - noen, on 05/24/2008, -1/+9Well, he doesn't wear a flag pin. Everyone knows if you don't wear one you must be a secret Mooslim.
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -8/+15Is that why the counter measure McCain authored has many of the same points and comes with a price tag that is $14 billion cheaper?
It would be nice if Congress would even be receptive to debating the spending measures rather than just signing one right into law with no discussion. - noen, on 05/24/2008, -3/+10We call them reality based.
- PiGuy, on 05/24/2008, -4/+11Obama thought it necessary to take to the Senate floor to falsely attack McCain in front of their colleagues. The attack had nothing to do with the bill or the senate and everything to do with attacking him for the election.
McCain responded appropriately and now his supporters can't take the heat. - OoO3xOoO, on 05/24/2008, -1/+8Many of the veteran benefits don't kick in for 12 years in McCains bill! 12 years! He can't support the bi-partisian GI bill if he wants a big army to fight his wars for the next hundred years because it is actually designed to help people after serving their country rather than keeping them entrenched in the military for a decade or more.
- brainpile3000, on 05/24/2008, -3/+10Why? Because Obama attacked him on his dedication to the Veterans. Given McCain's service record, I think he has every right to make each and every statement he made. Not only does he present a very sound and logical plan for compensating the Veterans, he takes a stand against Obama slandering his personal beliefs regarding said Veterans.
- ItsMyWii, on 05/24/2008, -0/+7Kindly shut the ***** up.
- Temo1, on 05/24/2008, -0/+6Only reason I buried it without rebuttal is because he's posted it before and I've responded before. Something to the affect that I'm sure he's no the only person running for president who has missed a vote because he was campaigning. That Obama has missed plenty of votes himself. And that the senate floor is not the only place to have a debate. Most bills get compromised on and hammered out in back rooms with party leaders anyway.
- Shoegaze99, on 05/24/2008, -0/+6What an absurdly overblown headline, and an even more absurd article. There was no temper shown. There was no rant. There was no outburst. There was little more than a pointed response to criticism thrown his way.
Boo-freakin'-hoo.
If the writer considers this an example of someone blowing their fuse, I wonder how they'd react when someone REALLY got angry rather than simply, you know, offered a rebuttal to comments made about them.
The shrill whining of my fellow Obama supporters is making me increasingly embarrassed to support the guy in public. He's still got my vote, but the knee-jerk reaction to anything even remotely resembling criticism of him not only comes across as a screaming case of insecurity, it's just plain childish. It's like these people have never followed a presidential race before.
Welcome to the world of debating contentious issues, people. Get over it. - ouzome, on 05/24/2008, -1/+7Finally McCain stands up for himself and comes back at Obama! I hope Obama keeps this up, so McCain won't be such a wimp.
- bernlin2000, on 05/24/2008, -6/+12That was scary...he really does have an ugly temper. It was a valid question from Obama: why doesn't McCain support giving our troops adequate benefits that those who fought in WWII received? His angry tirade from this article failed to answer that question: instead it tried to paint Obama as some kind of military-skipping new-kid-on-the-block who is overstepping his bounds. It's a very weak argument, and I think most people will see through it, especially if McCain avoids the hard questions.
- Cyrus042, on 05/24/2008, -3/+9How is it completely unnecessary? Do I need to remind you that it was Obama who made the first comment trying to undermine McCain? The DNC has consistently been sounding off the message that McCain doesn't care about veterans. Can you imagine how that would feel to McCain who has been a part of a long history of military tradition, and has obviously been a POW and seen first hand the horrors of war?
I realize that Obama supporters are fervent, but try and be objective here. Obama was totally out of line. Period. McCain's response is legitimate and appropriate. Don't be mistaken, McCain's response was not simply a response to just one statement, but rather to a dialogue that has been occurring for the last couple weeks by the DNC and surrogates on the news networks and written press. - noen, on 05/24/2008, -2/+8According to McCain, she's a *****.
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -3/+9Drug addiction is not a moral failing. Stealing, however, is.
- Ph0biA, on 05/24/2008, -5/+10Dugg for Picture.
- allengeer, on 05/24/2008, -1/+691 million is not a lot of money in terms of the federal budget and in terms of the earmarks.
usually that money goes to help fund a neat thing that you at one point enjoyed. a museum. a bridge. a school. earmarks are not bad things nor are they overwhelming the budget. irresponsible use of earmarks, however, should be curbed. - DigDugDigger, on 05/24/2008, -0/+5I don't know why you're being dugg down, it's true. You can be an addict who doesn't do the drug anymore, but often its a lifetime struggle, whether you give into it or not.
- inactive, on 05/24/2008, -1/+6There haven't been any spending bills since 2006? Thats strange. I could've sworn there were.
- pidgas, on 05/24/2008, -4/+9This bill is a Trojan horse that provides full public university tuition to any soldier after serving just 3 years. It makes leaving the service more attractive than staying in the service at a time when retention is vital. McCain has an alternative bill which provides similar benefits, but scales them to your length of service and makes them transferable to spouses and children.
Obama says, "I can't understand why he [McCain] would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill." (He forgot to mention that the Pentagon opposes the bill also.) Apparently, the real possibility of damaging retention and decimating the non-commissioned officer corps while we're fighting two wars is beyond Obama's intellectual grasp. Not exactly impressive evidence of his supposed intellect.
Instead of debate the issue, Obama invites the conclusion that McCain doesn't support the troops. It's despicable, and he was rightly called to task on his arrogance. - Wetzilla, on 05/24/2008, -2/+7And if you respond to a Conservative and disagree with them you are labeled:
Unpatriotic
not supporting the troops
as weak, a wuss, a pussy
socialist
out of touch
an activist
as having no morals - Pixelpaws, on 05/24/2008, -8/+13This seems like the kind of attitude the entire Republican party has had for a while now: any time someone offers a polite disagreement, the politician in question explodes. Why can't McCain (among others) understand the difference between questioning a policy and a personal attack?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 317 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is