[tpJKhY8Z]

Yeah, I have seen more troops being interested in possibly voting democrat than ever before.

JM

[GreesyBeeva]

Why are you insulting our troops, Whoha?

[Pelefaifs]

and to Lancer, do you Think that Obama will reverse this one:
McCain authored a 2003 amendment that gutted the "Buy American" rules requiring U.S. military equipment, defense systems and components to be manufactured in the United States. Setting aside job losses in the states as a result of this, there is also the fact that we have seen an increase in the amount of defective equipment we receive as a result. Given Obama's early policy goal to gut the military do you expect him to reverse the other spending related items on the list?

[indentKew]

McCain campaigned against Webb's new GI Bill, skipped the vote, and then lied, saying he supported it. Good. Webbs GI Bill is nothing more than bribary for military votes and makes no sense from a recruiting/retention/payed for what you serve perspective.

McCain backs plans for Afghanistan that the commanding officers state are not working. Like what?

McCain's campaign flagrantly violated OPSEC, releasing the date of Palin's son's deployment. False.

Depoyment dates for units are easily available to anyone, unless you think families just wake up one day and their loved ones are gone. You know damn well deployment dates are not secret.

McCain has backed the practice of misdiagnosing injuries as lesser ones so that money is saved by the VA, and went further calling for the "rationing" veteran's health care (by the way, he still takes his full disability check every month) False.

McCain won't let gays serve, calling them an "intolerable risk" despite the fact that the military is hemorrhaging people and can't meet recruiting goals. The military is meeting recruitment goals, and when they were not it was by fractions of a percent. When did you take up Oerdin's posting style?

McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. You know, those more frequent deployments you will have because we can't get the numbers we need. False. There is significant debate in both the services and Congress about what is adaquate and what is nice to have. We are at war, and if that requires me to deploy for years at a time then so be it, its what I signed up to do.

McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities. Why not just give them 100 million? How about 100 billion? Not throwing money at the military is not a vice, as we say in the supply community "mission readiness at any price is no longer affordable."

Our military units have more than enough resources available to them, we have simple flushed them with money for so long they have forgoten how to be effiecient and resonsible with what they have, leading to waste and bloat. The easy answer to mission readiness is to throw money at it, the hard but proper answer for those who are stewards of the tax payers money and trust is to judiciously run and maintain a squared away unit with the more than reasonable means available.

McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. Again, blindly throwing money at the military is a BAD thing.

McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq. "Safety Equipment"

Sounds like you are just mad someone won't write your ex constiuency a blank check.

McCain authored a 2003 amendment that gutted the "Buy American" rules requiring U.S. military equipment, defense systems and components to be manufactured in the United States. Setting aside job losses in the states as a result of this, there is also the fact that we have seen an increase in the amount of defective equipment we receive as a result. Wait wait wait. First your mad that McCain won't write blank checks, and now you are mad that he was against restictions that would have made it harder and more expensive to procure equipment?

McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests. Asking the services to live within their means is a good thing. There is money out there for these things, making the military prioritize their spending is not a bad thing.

McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. Repeat yourself often. The same sensible rebuttal applies.

Note that these aren't abstained or missed roll. He voted against them. He backed Bush when Bush vetoed the budget for Jan '08, which meant we didn't get out re-enlistment bonuses. Reenlistemnt bonuses are not the only factor involved in a national budget Lonestar. And btw, every reenlistment bonus was back paid. As a member of a rate that recieved this eggregiously inflated bonuses, I would have thought you had notices that.

He and the Republican's opposed the Democrats increasing out annual raise despite the fact that the domestic economic policies he supports kicked inflation so high we saw an effective annual pay cut. False on the pay cut, though now I see what your real problem is. You are mad that you didn't recieve your annual bribe for your vote.

McCain and these bastards get up there and use ****ing fake funeral footage of soldiers to wrap themselves in the flag, while at the same time prohibiting any actual footage to be shot of returning coffins. GOOD!

He meant to stand in front of Walter Reed hospital for his speech, despite voting against better funding for the VA health care system. False, he simply knows that money isn't the cure all, and has the courage to fund propery instead of panderingly.

BTW, you are only listing what McCain voted against as far as the VA, what was contained in all the legeslation he voted for?

The guy was using Petraeus in ads without permission literally days after the JCoS issued direct orders to all in the military to not allow themselves to be used politically. You have a basic misunderstanding of military public affairs.

Hell, the Republicans just basically bribed an Alaskan NG general with an in-state promotion to get him to retract he statements about Palin's involvement in running the ANG. How much respect for earning rank does that show? You know who approves flag officer promotions, right?

But hey, at least if he falls over dead we'll have Nazi Barbie running the show. I really hope you were being sarcastic Lonestar, because if not my opinion of you as both a poster and a veteran just sank. Being in a the military or a veteran is not a license to milk the government for all its worth.

Honestly, your whining above puts the best of lobbyists to shame.

[KahiroSamo]

Originally posted by Whoha
Whats the sunglasses smiley? ("cool" in between two colons)

And, for starting ANOTHER freaking U.S. election thread, I give Lonestar a

[SigNeewfoew]

No wonder Patroklos is a Reagan Supply Sider. He's in the Navy Supply Dept.

[NumDusthouh]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Good. Webbs GI Bill is nothing more than bribary for military votes and makes no sense from a recruiting/retention/payed for what you serve perspective.
Sure thing buddy. Far be it from the servicemen fighting this threat that the Republicans have compared to Nazism to receive similar perks that the "Greatest Generation" did.

Like what? McCain disagrees with ADM Mullen's assessment on where troops should go.


False.

Depoyment dates for units are easily available to anyone, unless you think families just wake up one day and their loved ones are gone. You know damn well deployment dates are not secret. So, basically "It is acceptable to make it as easy as possible for the opposition to find high profile targets"? Is that what you are saying?

I don't know how they did things on your ship, but passing out ship's movement was a big no-no for us.


False. Wrong


The military is meeting recruitment goals, and when they were not it was by fractions of a percent. When did you take up Oerdin's posting style? They meet the recruiting goals by lowering standards to the point of allowing the borderline retarded in, which to me, at least, is not good policy.



False. There is significant debate in both the services and Congress about what is adaquate and what is nice to have. We are at war, and if that requires me to deploy for years at a time then so be it, its what I signed up to do. Which would be a lot more compelling argument if you had volunteered(voluntold) to be IA'd to Iraq, or were a ground pounder. One deployment as DISBO on a DDG then off to shore duty in South Carolina doesn't scream "tough deployment cycle" to me.

As opposed to Army/Marines who are cycling through every 15 months or less, causing retention problems(when they are at home between deployments) which means...more training for more FNGs! Hell, I was at an IRR muster this past July where they said the exact same thing. Recruiting is easy, retention is difficult. And Retention is important.



Why not just give them 100 million? How about 100 billion? Not throwing money at the military is not a vice, as we say in the supply community "mission readiness at any price is no longer affordable."

Our military units have more than enough resources available to them, we have simple flushed them with money for so long they have forgoten how to be effiecient and resonsible with what they have, leading to waste and bloat. The easy answer to mission readiness is to throw money at it, the hard but proper answer for those who are stewards of the tax payers money and trust is to judiciously run and maintain a squared away unit with the more than reasonable means available.



Again, blindly throwing money at the military is a BAD thing.
I'm talking VA facilities, not strict DoD facilities, and there's a big damn difference between the funding levels to two should get and do get, and you know it.



"Safety Equipment"

Sounds like you are just mad someone won't write your ex constiuency a blank check. Remember, in McCain's world pork is only good if it goes to the Israel fund.





Wait wait wait. First your mad that McCain won't write blank checks, and now you are mad that he was against restictions that would have made it harder and more expensive to procure equipment? With increased amounts of equipment crapping out in the field? Hmmm...

Hmm...

One does not exclude the other.



Asking the services to live within their means is a good thing. There is money out there for these things, making the military prioritize their spending is not a bad thing. "We go to war with the army we have, not the army we want. Go weld some scrap metal on the humvee."


Repeat yourself often. The same sensible rebuttal applies. Repeat a false statement often. It continues to be false.


Reenlistemnt bonuses are not the only factor involved in a national budget Lonestar. And btw, every reenlistment bonus was back paid. As a member of a rate that recieved this eggregiously inflated bonuses, I would have thought you had notices that. (1)No, but that doesn't mean McCain isn't willing to play budget chicken because his particular pork isn't in the budget.
(2)I've been out for a couple years. I got out when the USN started making noise about folding my rate into the ETs.



False on the pay cut, though now I see what your real problem is. You are mad that you didn't recieve your annual bribe for your vote. Not active duty, so the "Lonestar didn't get his annual bribe" isn't exactly germane, is it?

And yeah, Republican spendthrift economic policies(at least Dems tend to raise taxes to make up the loss) are responsible for the loss of buying power for ALL Americans, which means that servicemen are affected too.

GOOD! YEAH! FAKE ****ING FUNERALS! WOOHOO!

THAT IS LEADERSHIP!!!!




False, he simply knows that money isn't the cure all, and has the courage to fund propery instead of panderingly.

BTW, you are only listing what McCain voted against as far as the VA, what was contained in all the legeslation he voted for? I happen to agree with a lot of his procurement reforms, actually(The KC-45...and as a Northrup employee you CAN accuse me of "wanting a bribery check" with that.)


You have a basic misunderstanding of military public affairs. Help me understand why "The guy was using Petraeus in ads without permission literally days after the JCoS issued direct orders to all in the military to not allow themselves to be used politically." is a good thing then.



You know who approves flag officer promotions, right? Wait, I know this one....


...The Senate Armed Forces committee! ****, wait, who is on that again?


I really hope you were being sarcastic Lonestar, because if not my opinion of you as both a poster and a veteran just sank. Being in a the military or a veteran is not a license to milk the government for all its worth.

Honestly, your whining above puts the best of lobbyists to shame. Your blind fellowship of a guy because he happened to lose 6 planes is pretty damning.

[RokeIdeadioke]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Patrokaoios

OMFG MCCAIN VOTED AGAINST A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN TEH MILITARY MONEYS!!!11 HE'S ANTI MILITARY!

Can it you homo wankers. The simple reality is that if you had to work in the senate and threw money at every whiney ***** who wanted the money you would be accused of wasteful spending and shot out the back of a lion's ass. Let's just get one thing clear. Last week I went to buy some lemonade from a stand run by some twelve year old boys in the neighborhood. I gave them $2.00 for one cup of lemonade. Now these kids work long hours. I'd say maybe 5 hours in the hot hot sun while their mothers call them capitalists and iron their clothes. But they don't get much business and make MAYBE $20 a day for their efforts. Am I to be berated for not giving these youngsters $20 instead of $2? Then berate me. Strap me down right here and berate me all day long. Berate my until I'm red in the face. I will not have any of it. IT is not REASONABLE. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN IT. I'm being paged now. Maybe it is a booty call? Wig, promise me that you will never, ever, take the Meds that the doc recommends.

[nasxbrtyol]

Should I bite...

Maybe later

And I apologixe for the harshness of my original post Lonestar, I just consider most of what you posted either fabrications or short sighted

[maysubers]

Sure thing buddy. Far be it from the servicemen fighting this threat that the Republicans have compared to Nazism to receive similar perks that the "Greatest Generation" did. Obviously you have no concept of what WWII GI Bill benefits were, because the current program goes FAR beyond anything they got.

There are ways to do this, and there war ways not to. And yes, there is a pricetag to what you deserve for you service. Being a vetern is not some secret club that exempts you from the hardships of living.

So, basically "It is acceptable to make it as easy as possible for the opposition to find high profile targets"? Is that what you are saying?

I don't know how they did things on your ship, but passing out ship's movement was a big no-no for us.

It worked the same way on my ship as it did on yours, as it does with every other non special military unit, deployment dates and AORs are public knowledge. Thats why the Post and Couirier publishes the deployment dates and where they are going. Thats why the Navy Times tells you exactly what AOR the ship are currently in every two weeks.

What is an OPSEC violation is saying "we are going to transit the SOH at 1700" or "We will be moving a convoy from Najaf to Baghdad at 1300," NOT we are deploying from Alaska to Baghad in 30 Dec.

Hell, you can go to the CENTCOM website and the OIF/OEF website and locate all the units with more accuracy that what you are *****ing about.

McCain disagrees with ADM Mullen's assessment on where troops should go. ADM Mullen is the only opinion? Does ADM Mullen even command operational forces? Being an Obama supporter, I understand if that answer is above your paygrade

Which would be a lot more compelling argument if you had volunteered(voluntold) to be IA'd to Iraq, or were a ground pounder. One deployment as DISBO on a DDG then off to shore duty in South Carolina doesn't scream "tough deployment cycle" to me. I have volunteered. Twice. A four star vetoed it both times.

As for deployment cycle, I spent three years on McFaul and of that 2 were underway, 15 months of that on TWO deployments spent almost exclusively in the HOA or NAG, mostly doing point defense at ABOT and KAAOT doing a dozen bordings a day. I've put my time in Lonestar.

As opposed to Army/Marines who are cycling through every 15 months or less, causing retention problems(when they are at home between deployments) which means...more training for more FNGs! Hell, I was at an IRR muster this past July where they said the exact same thing. Recruiting is easy, retention is difficult. And Retention is important. Exactly, which is why your support for the GI Bill in the form approved is hypocritcal.

Wrong Thats one of the smartest ideas ever. The VAs primary mission should be to redress wounds/problems due to their military service, and secondarily general medicine for needs outside their government service.

Wrong Not actually the case. Are you going to pull an Oeridn now and pull out the handful of felony waivers the Marines approved after extensive special review of the circumstnaces that made up ,01 percent of their recruiting pool last year? Please have more academic honesty.

With increased amounts of equipment crapping out in the field? Hmmm...

Hmm...

One does not exclude the other. You just made no sense. Surfise to say your contridiction in this instance glaringly stands.

"We go to war with the army we have, not the army we want. Go weld some scrap metal on the humvee." Why don't we spend 5,000,000 on every soldier Lonestar. Apparently you belive in no cost to great right? Why don't they all have their own persona Abrahms and A10? Hell, WHERE ARE THE BATTLE MECHS?!? Too stingy Lonestar?

Repeat a false statement often. It continues to be false. Correct, now that you have recognized that your are repeating false statments you can stop.

(1)No, but that doesn't mean McCain isn't willing to play budget chicken because his particular pork isn't in the budget. Thank you for being honset enough to admit your original characterization was false, and that the reenlistment bouns delay was an unfortunate side effect of bigger forces at play.

(2)I've been out for a couple years. I got out when the USN started making noise about folding my rate into the ETs. EW correct? They merged that into the every inceasing flavors of CTs.

Not active duty, so the "Lonestar didn't get his annual bribe" isn't exactly germane, is it? No, it doesn't. Rate loyalties run deep, and it is entirely understandable that you identify what is good for you comrades with what would have been good for you.

And yeah, Republican spendthrift economic policies(at least Dems tend to raise taxes to make up the loss) are responsible for the loss of buying power for ALL Americans, which means that servicemen are affected too. Give me a break, no party today holds the high ground on fiscal responsibility.

YEAH! FAKE ****ING FUNERALS! WOOHOO! I will take your sidestep from what my response was directed to to mean you agree with my statment.

As for fake funerals, please provide a link, I know nothing about them.

I happen to agree with a lot of his procurement reforms, actually(The KC-45...and as a Northrup employee you CAN accuse me of "wanting a bribery check" with that.) Then you are not fundemetally disagreeing with me that the VA and other military initiatives don't deserve or need a limitless supply of money to perform the missions I assume?

Any retard can spend money and achieve mission readiness, it takes leadership and skill to do so effieciently for reasonable cost.

Help me understand why "The guy was using Petraeus in ads without permission literally days after the JCoS issued direct orders to all in the military to not allow themselves to be used politically." is a good thing then. Is McCain under the command of the JCS? Is there any restiction on you or I as civilians using the image of the General? If not, why would there be for McCain?

As far as I know McCain hasn't misrepresented his image or anything the General has said, unlike say Obamas fanboys movon.org.

...The Senate Armed Forces committee! ****, wait, who is on that again? Democrats.

You realize they are holding up over three dozen flag promotions for political reasons right now, right?

Your blind fellowship of a guy because he happened to lose 6 planes is pretty damning. Fellowship or not, all I did here was point out your gross mischaracterizations/errors/lies.

[ThisIsOK]

because he passed through leadership academy?

[11Woxsepmoomo]

Well I think that's in comparison to McCain's GI Bill, which was, most agree, geared more for retention (you get more money the more your stay).

[Queuerriptota]

You got that right Dashi!

Any veteran who steps out of line by thinking differently from Republican tools is an unpatriotic disgrace.

[ViagraPriceBuying]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


And that's fair, but I guess I feel like the whole argument over it as a retention tool is a little misguided. In my mind, it's a nice little carrot, but you shouldn't be trying to retain Soldiers by saying "Well, if you just suck it up for a few more years, we'll [insert perk here]". It's really just a way of avoiding the legitimate, everyday problems that cause them to leave in the first place. If it's for retention it isn't a very good benefit because people use the GI bill to get better civilian jobs. It's not much better than not having a GI Bill at all.

[oemcheapdownload]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
And that's fair, but I guess I feel like the whole argument over it as a retention tool is a little misguided. In my mind, it's a nice little carrot, but you shouldn't be trying to retain Soldiers by saying "Well, if you just suck it up for a few more years, we'll [insert perk here]". It's really just a way of avoiding the legitimate, everyday problems that cause them to leave in the first place. Like getting shot at?

[kilibry]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Honestly, while the expensive toys are cool and good for physicists, we should be spending more on our men and less on the expensive toys.

JM Yes, let Europeans bother with such trivialities as large particle colliders.

[Kausilwf]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Yes, let Europeans bother with such trivialities as large particle colliders. Actually, we have pulled a lot of funding from that sort of fundamental science in the last decade.

It will cause the scientists who go to our great schools to seek employment elsewhere, sort of a reverse of the 90s when scientists from the former soviet block came to the US.

JM

[Fetowip]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Actually, we have pulled a lot of funding from that sort of fundamental science in the last decade.

It will cause the scientists who go to our great schools to seek employment elsewhere, sort of a reverse of the 90s when scientists from the former soviet block came to the US.

JM

And we're off course glad its happening.