McCain Takes Credit for GI Bill He Fought Against

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Video

In fact, Bush takes credit himself, then thanks McCain for his part in getting it passed. Bush and McCain BOTH fought against it.

Senator Webb's GI BILL awards post 9/11 veterans with an education after they get out.

Yeah. Bush and McCain opposed that. And then took credit for it. :shk:

Edited to change title and specifics.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


isnt it amazing what the 'internets' can do today?

50 years ago, Bush and McCain could have pulled the wool over our eyes.

They still play it old school, despite the advances in "technology" that makes them look like a total dink.

This is hilarious. Nice find BH - Star&flag



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
1) Bush doesnt get a vote, he gets a veto which he didnt use since the Bill had a veto proof majority.
2) McCain did not vote on this bill at all, He was however the sponsor of another competing GI Bill.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
How do these people sleep at night knowing that they send our greatest citizens to die and then they don't even want to give them a education for their brave service. McCain is veteran and as much as he pats himself on his back for his service he can't help his fellow veterans



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkStormCrow
 


McCain came out against the bill publicly



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by obamafan14
 


I wonder where the fascist are???



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Video

In fact, Bush takes credit himself, then thanks McCain for his part in getting it passed. Bush and McCain BOTH voted against it.

Senator Webb's GI BILL awards post 9/11 veterans with an education after they get out.

Yeah. Bush and McCain voted against that. And then took credit for it. :shk:


Just curious about something. Isn't it against the T&C to post misleading or outright false threads?

Bush signed the bill. He didn't "vote" against it. Presidents don't vote. And McCain did not vote against it either.

Maybe you should just ask the mods to delete this thread. It's a flat out lie.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
McCain Now Supports GI Bill, War Funding Bill


ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: Sen. John McCain did not vote last month when Senators passed their version of a war funding emergency supplemental. But he said the bill being considered then was overloaded with funding for non-war related projects and he objected to a sweeping new benefit for veterans to get the equivalent of state college tuition and a living stipend after only a few years service because he worried it would affect military retention rates.



But, with the addition of a clause allowing service members to transfer their benefits to family members, McCain now supports the 21st Century Bill of Rights, the proposal to give substantially more benefits to veterans for college after their service in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he'll support a deal between the White House and House Democrats to fund the war along with $21 billion in domestic spending.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


According to this website

GI Bill 2008 - State of the New GI Bill

McCain did not vote in the final Senate Vote on May 22.

Now where I come from, people who actively support things tend to vote for them.

From Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition



Bush, McCain and the others who've opposed Webb's bill argue that the expanded provisions -- the government would pay tuition and expenses at a four-year public university for anyone who spent three years in the military after 9/11 -- will hurt the military's efforts to retain its troops. Bush has threatened to veto Webb's bill, and McCain introduced one of his own. He did not vote today.


This New York Times Editorial Editorial - Mr.Bush and the G.I.Bill



Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.


So. McCain didn't vote. Bush opposed the Bill.
As has also been noted, McCain intended to introduce his own Bill, which is not exactly a sign of support for this, is it?


Originally posted by jamie83
Maybe you should just ask the mods to delete this thread. It's a flat out lie.


Whilst the wording is slightly wrong, the premise of the thread is correct. Its not a lie. Its not getting deleted

And maybe you should leave the moderating to the moderators?


[edit on 1/0708/08 by neformore]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Now where I come from, people who actively support things tend to vote for them.

So. McCain didn't vote. Bush opposed the Bill.


Where I come from "McCain didn't vote" and "voted against" are mutually exclusive realities. I.e., it's false to state that a person voted against something when in fact they didn't vote. Likewise, it's false to say Bush voted against the bill when in fact Bush SIGNED the bill.

Seriously, where I come from, that would be called a flat out lie. E.g., thread title: "voted against". Truth: did not vote.

See the difference?

One version of reality imagines McCain on the Senate floor saying the word "NO" when his name is called. The truth is McCain wasn't there when the vote was taken. If a person tried doing this in court it would be called "perjury" where I come from.



Whilst the wording is slightly wrong, the premise of the thread is correct. Its not a lie. Its not getting deleted


This is a very slippery slope that you as a mod might want to think carefully about.

McCain did NOT vote against this bill. It's more than slightly wrong wording to say that he voted against it, unless of course you don't understand what the word "vote" means. And I'm not being facetious when I say that. Some people might think "vote" means supports it. "Vote" in this case specifically means to vote in the Senate.

Bush doesn't vote for bills. Both McCain and Bush preferred a different bill, but after debating their side, were happy to accept that Webb's bill was passed. That's a far cry from stating that they voted against it.



And maybe you should leave the moderating to the moderators?


Maybe if the moderators consistently applied the T&C it might help people understand what's acceptable and what's not.

One mode gave me applause for the same thread another mod gave me a warning. I was scolded and told not to post sensationalized post titles that were not factually accurate. My title was "Obama planned kickback to Perseus and Goldman Sachs?" and then showed links between Obama's planned energy policy and his supporters from Goldman Sachs and Perseus who stand to benefit from the energy policy. At least there was a rationale to raising the question as to whether kickbacks were planned.

This thread is factually wrong. The thread title is flat out wrong. Some might call it a lie to say that somebody did something when they didn't

McCain did NOT vote against the GI bill.
Bush did NOT vote against the GI bill.
Bush signed the GI bill.

According to your logic, it would be ok for me to post something like:

"Obama votes to strike down 2nd Amendment" because he agreed with the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court decision.

Is this really the direction you want this board to take? I thought the idea was to move AWAY from misleading sensationalized thread topics.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


ahhh the clingly stinky scent of desperation. It seems a few anti-obama mongrels are wearing it like a cologne.

Atleast we're talking about voting records now, and how dispicably identical McCain is to Bush.

In case you, Jamie, or anyone else missed it:

John McCain doesnt support bi-partisan GI bill.

oh, and the kicker?

Vietnam Veterans against John McCain
I wonder. If veterans dont support John McCain because of the pedestal he preaches from concerning the vietnam war, and his racial slurs against people of a different country............why should we? If we support him because he's a veteran, and they despise him because he's a bad one, i wonder.....


edit


Maybe if the moderators consistently applied the T&C it might help people understand what's acceptable and what's not.


I believe the mods do a very good job of adhering to the T&C. Maybe you should count your lucky stars that 1/2 of the posts from you and your possee didnt get deleted. they sort of range from Blatant plagiarism or So incomprehensibly full of ignorance that you just have to stand in awe.

In case you missed them, here are a few examples: Here they are



How many Obama myths have to be proven untrue before certain people just start running out of ideas? The one i havent heard yet is

Barack Obama conspires with the mole people from the center of the earth to enslave all of mankind to a subterranian prison, where they will forever chip away at rock, and drink mud water for nourishment.


There's some material for your next thread, obama haters.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah. Bush and McCain voted against that. And then took credit for it. :shk:

This is wrong. Simply put, neither Bush nor McCain voted at all so they could not take credit for it either way.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I agree with Jamie. The old title of this thread was inaccurate and the new one still is. A title of "McCain Takes Credit for Bill He Opposed and For Which He Did Not Vote" would be better.

Regardless, I think too much is being read into this. This seems to apply that McCain is anti-GI bill and he's not. He stated over and over that he was against this bill because the benefits received were not based on time served. On the other hand, it's screams of "pouting kid" to not show up for the vote. Do we really want a president that "takes his ball and goes home" when things don't go his way?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Do we really want a president that "takes his ball and goes home" when things don't go his way?


i can't stop laughing

on topic:

John McCain has missed more voting sessions than any other senator.

42 in a row (and counting)

has missed every single environmental vote

Presidential candidate, John McCain misses General Petraeus confirmation hearing. And why? So McCain can raise money for his campaign. Seems like this maybe something important? I mean, the biggest issue so far this debate has been the Iraq war (arguably).

Has cast one vote since march 2008

And is a record holder for most votes missed at a staggering 61.8%. Second in place? Tim Johnson. 51.5%. And bringing up the rear. McCains opponent Barack Obama 43.4% (almost 20% lower better than McCain)

Maybe that should be Obama's new slogan "almost 20% better than the opposition"

and for McCain to use the excuse he's on a campaign trail. For what? He didnt really have competition for the republican nomination, it was a battle for the democrats, surely Obama would have his hands tied a bit more than McCain?

Only until now has McCain really had to do anything. So what has he been doing to miss all these voting sessions? Seems he's Physically Assaulting veterans and their families.


So im curious. How can one, with this knowledge i listed, not be suspicious of McCains actions where he takes credit for a bill he never supported?

Sounds like blind group-think to me....



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
McCain's alternative GI Bill would have tied benefits to time in service. The longer you serve the more benefits you get. The more liberal GI Bill treats the 3 year veteran the same as a 20 year veteran.

That falls right in line with liberals downplaying achievement.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
1) Bush doesnt get a vote, ...
2) McCain did not vote on this bill at all,


You are right. Mea Culpa on the language. I'm sorry. Instead of saying that Bush and McCain voted against the bill, they actually OPPOSED the bill from the start. And then took credit when it got passed. (I know it's no excuse, but I shouldn't have come back in here right before bed)

Source



Pressure had mounted on McCain to support the bill — a veterans group, which backs the legislation, delivered a petition to McCain's Senate office, signed by 30,000 veterans.

Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.
...
On his campaign plane this afternoon, McCain said he and allies in the Senate are working on an alternative to the bill, but would only support something that included incentives to stay in the military.


And when McCain was asked why he opposed the bill, he used his military background and awards he's received to stoke his "right" to speak out on veterans issues AND to criticize Obama for his lack of experience in making the right judgment about caring for veterans... The old one-two punch, while avoiding answering the question.



[edit on 1-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
funny little snippit about "McCains GI Bill"


Republicans offered Mr. McCain's bill as an amendment to legislation that would give police officers, firefighters and other first responders the right to unionize. The Senate voted 55-42 to kill the amendment.


Source

Yeah, he's for the veterans alright... :shk:





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join