July 20, 2007

Democrats Support What Troops?

Democrats keep complaining that they support the troops. Well, they support the troops like I support Hillary Clinton: I just don't want her to win. A few details about the "support" that the Democrats want to give to the American troops:

To recap here are a few items that the Department of Defense Authorization Act would do:

* A 3.5 percent pay increase across-the-board for all service members and would guarantee a pay increase for members of the American Forces
* $50 million for the Defense Health Program sustainment account for health care facilities, particularly at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
* An increase in the authorized payment from $12,000 to $100,000 for Defense Department military personnel who die while working in a combat zone.
* An additional $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.

To recap here is what Democrat Senators have said about the troops:

* “We've all made a promise to our servicemen and women that while their away protecting us; we would be in Washington protecting them and their families. We should not let partisan judicial politics stop us from keeping that promise.” (Sen. Mark Pryor, Senate Democrat Conference Web site, accessed 7/19/07)
* “Our first priority should be to ensure that the men and women who honorably serve our country are given the resources they need to succeed both on and off the battlefield.” (Sen. Dick Durbin’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)
* "As part of the Defense Authorization bill this week, I will introduce an amendment making it clear Congress will provide every dollar and every authority needed to build vehicles resistant to roadside bombs and shaped charges. As long as we have a single soldier in Iraq, we must do whatever it takes to provide them the best protection possible. This must be a national priority. (Sen. Joe Biden press release, 7/16/07)
* “…it is extremely important to make sure our troops continue to know we support them. The president was right to commend the troops for their tremendous efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but honoring them with words is not enough. It’s critical that our troops have the proper equipment they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller press release, 1/20/04)
* “As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.” (Sen. Carl Levin Washington Post Op-Ed, 6/21/07)
* “We are here to say that, yes, we're going to fight hard for all of what government can do -- the needs that they [soldiers] have, the financial needs, whether it's health care needs, mental health care needs, equipment and everything.” (Sen. Mary Landrieu press conference, 7/11/07)
* The first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those whoÂ’ve worn the uniform of the United States of America. Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families-whether they are on active duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans. (Sen. John KerryÂ’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)
* We must ensure that our troops at home and abroad have the tools they need to protect freedom and democracy across the globe. I'm committed to working together to ensure our military and our men and women in uniform have what they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Max Baucus’ Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

Yet when it came time to vote on legislation to increase troop pay, to increase money for military healthcare, to increase benefits for military widows and families, to increase the safety of our troops; Democrats staged a self-described stunt and when that failed to even impress their own liberal base, they throw a temper-tantrum and pulled the bill from the floor.

If Democrats really supported the troops they would call on their leadership to quit pandering to the left and pass legislation that actually does support our troops.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:09 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 4 kb.

1 President Bush opposes the bill, too. Tell us why, Ogre.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 20, 2007 05:39 PM (JZznv)

2 Please read the above post. Your answers are there.

Posted by: Ogre at July 20, 2007 07:59 PM (oifEm)

3 False. Your post doesn't mention Bush at all, nor his opposition to provisions of the bill. Why does Bush oppose this bill, Ogre?

Posted by: meatbrain at July 21, 2007 12:07 AM (zeuwp)

4 Hey, you almost pulled your head out of... You at least noticed that Bush wasn't mentioned. I wonder why it is that you mention it.

Posted by: Ogre at July 21, 2007 12:10 AM (JzmO7)

5 Why does Bush oppose this bill, Ogre? Keep running away from the question, coward. It's fun watching you avoid it.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 21, 2007 12:18 AM (bjF+0)

6 Your fantasy land intrigues me. Do they sell tickets? Does the space shuttle go there? Why does Mr. Tim Smith, of Youngstown, OH, oppose the bill, meatbrain? Answer the question.

Posted by: Ogre at July 21, 2007 12:34 AM (JzmO7)

7 Why does Bush oppose this bill, Ogre? Keep running away from the question, coward. It's fun watching you avoid it. It's especially fun watching you advertise your ignorance of current events. Why does Bush oppose this bill, Ogre? What specific provisions does he oppose on the grounds that the cost is too high? Name them all, ignorant coward.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 21, 2007 01:31 PM (94kX4)

8 Why does Tim Smith oppose this bill, meatbrain? Keep running away from the question, coward. It's fun watching you avoid it. It's especially fun watching you advertise your ignorance of current events. Why does Tim Smith opposes this bill, Meatbrain? What specific provisions does he oppose on the ground that the cost is too high? Name them all, ignorant coward.

Posted by: Ogre at July 21, 2007 01:53 PM (JzmO7)

9 As expected, Ogre has helped me prove that he is ignorant and built to stay that way. Thanks, buddy.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 21, 2007 09:06 PM (pIPAQ)

10 I don't expect you to understand, meatbrain, but I'll mention for anyone else who might be reading this: I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT BUSH! If you want to talk about Bush on your blog, you just go right ahead. However, IN THIS POST, ON THIS BLOG, I'm talking about Democrats. While Bush may hold may positions that agree with Democrats, in this post I'M TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS. I'm sorry that your reading comprehension doesn't seem to understand the concept of one topic vs. another, meatbrain. Once again, for meatbrain, who live in his own world: THIS POST WAS ABOUT DEMOCRATS, NOT BUSH. Ah, I don't know why I bother.

Posted by: Ogre at July 21, 2007 10:49 PM (JzmO7)

11 Ogre's comments to this post, on the other hand, have helped me prove that he is ignorant and built to stay that way. Thanks, buddy.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 21, 2007 10:59 PM (o4ssM)

12 Unreal. Absolutely unreal. Meatbrain, did you realize this post has nothing to do with president Bush? Would you at least admit that? I suspect not. Maybe you think it IS about president Bush. In your fantasy-world, it might be. But in the actual world where people live, his name does not appear in the post.

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 12:17 AM (JzmO7)

13 "Meatbrain, did you realize this post has nothing to do with president Bush?" True. So what? I asked Ogre about Bush's opposition to the bill. Ogre's inability to answer a asimple question proved once again that he is ignorant and built to stay that way. Thanks, buddy.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 22, 2007 12:32 AM (KI1XX)

14 So, following your logic, I am now asking you how many fingers I'm holding up. Since you cannot answer a simple question, you are ignorant and built to stay that way. Worse, I don't think you even understand that example. Wow. You really, really don't understand reality, do you? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to point out that my not answering a question that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about really, seriously, doesn't mean a thing about, well, anything. Meatbrain, what color is my front door? If you cannot answer, then you're ignorant and built to stay that way. Meatbrain, in this post about Democrats, I'd like you to answer me why I purchased the most recent book that I bought. If you do not answer, you're ignorant and built to stay that way. Do you even understand this? Do you grasp this concept? I'm talking about one topic, and you're talking about something else. So to make any conclusions about anything you're saying and applying that to me is just utter insanity. Seriously. I wasn't talking about Bush. I have zero interest in talking about Bush. I don't even like Bush. I was talking about Democrats. You can talk about anything else you like, but that doesn't mean anything about me. Do you understand this concept at all?

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 12:37 AM (JzmO7)

15 "I wasn't talking about Bush." I was. I asked Ogre to about Bush's opposition to the bill, because Bush's threat to veto a bill that provides the troops with $6 a month more than he wants them to have shows that Bush, too, can be seen as failing to support the troops. Ogre could not answer the question. He was too stupid to find the answer to that question. He was too stupid to even understand the question itself. Ogre's inability to answer a simple question proved once again that he is ignorant and built to stay that way. Thanks, buddy.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 22, 2007 12:55 AM (94kX4)

16 Wow. You really are that clueless. I thought you were just playing around. You're not. You really, really are that clueless.

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 12:58 AM (JzmO7)

17 And again, Ogre proves that he is ignorant and built to stay that way. He's afraid to even discuss Bush's opposition to the pay raise for the troops that was passed by the House, and he is unable to comprehend how opposition that could also be interpreted as failing to support the troops. Ogre wants his one-sided, intellectually dishonest view of this situation to remain intact, and he'll ignore any facts that threaten his fantasy world. PS: Ogre, please go ahead and delete this comment again. I've got mirrors of every comment I post here, and I will so enjoy posting documented evidence that you are so terrified of an open discussion that you resort to deleting comments that expose your cowardice.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 22, 2007 09:38 PM (94kX4)

18 I wonder if I could get someone in here to observe. This has got to be a textbook example of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 09:41 PM (JzmO7)

19 Oh, and are mirror supposed to terrify me or something? What an odd person.

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 09:42 PM (JzmO7)

20 And by the way, it's okay if you want to address me. No, really, you can talk to me instead of making these broad statements as if you're addressing someone else. If you don't understand what I'm talking about (and somehow it seems likely that you don't), please don't be afraid to ask for help. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: BUSH!

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 09:43 PM (JzmO7)

21 Ogre pretends that pointing out a fact -- that Bush has in fact threatened to veto a bill that raises the pay for US soldiers by 3.5% -- is an example of an imaginary ailment called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Let's go over that again: Ogre believes that recognizing facts is a form of derangement. Who's really deranged? Who is ignorant and built to stay that way? Who's afraid to discuss the facts?

Posted by: meatbrain at July 22, 2007 10:57 PM (LIaFd)

22 I really, really wish you would understand the concept that Bush isn't a Democrat. But understanding doesn't seem to be your strong point. You DEMAND that you're going to talk about Bush -- no matter what. Well, you just go ahead. I'm not interested. Once again, this post was about the United States Senate -- of which Bush is NOT a member.

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 11:08 PM (JzmO7)

23 "Once again, this post was about the United States Senate -- of which Bush is NOT a member." This post was about supporting the troops -- and Ogre is afraid to discuss the facts that Bush's support for the troops does not extend to a 3.5% pay raise. Ogre proves that he is ignorant and built to stay that way. He's afraid to even discuss Bush's opposition to the pay raise for the troops that was passed by the House, and he is unable to comprehend how opposition that could also be interpreted as failing to support the troops. Ogre wants his one-sided, intellectually dishonest view of this situation to remain intact, and he'll ignore any facts that threaten his fantasy world. Ogre pretends that pointing out a fact -- that Bush has in fact threatened to veto a bill that raises the pay for US soldiers by 3.5% -- is an example of an imaginary ailment called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Let's go over that again: Ogre believes that recognizing facts is a form of derangement. Who's really deranged? Who is ignorant and built to stay that way? Who's afraid to discuss the facts?

Posted by: meatbrain at July 22, 2007 11:24 PM (aEi4d)

24 Again, five times you mentioned Bush in that comment. To illustrate how clueless you really are (and I wish you could comprehend this), you are now even telling me what my post is about! Did you even notice that? This is why I claim that you live in another world. You have no clue why I wrote the post. In fact, I specifically told you that I really didn't CARE about Bush and what Bush thinks. But that doesn't matter to you. You DEMAND to talk about Bush. Only in your world, things have to be the way you see them, and there's no room for anyone, at any time, to have any opinions or thoughts of their own. That's a serious problem. Do you complain about Bush on other blogs where people talk about the Detroit Tigers? Why not?

Posted by: Ogre at July 22, 2007 11:33 PM (JzmO7)

25 "...you are now even telling me what my post is about!" Yes. I said that this post is about supporting the troops. Ogre entitled the post "Democrats Support What Troops?", and said in part: "Democrats keep complaining that they support the troops. Well, they support the troops like I support Hillary Clinton: I just don't want her to win. A few details about the "support" that the Democrats want to give to the American troops... If Democrats really supported the troops they would call on their leadership to quit pandering to the left and pass legislation that actually does support our troops." One would think, having read the post, that Ogre wrote a post that is about supporting the troops. Perhaps he neglected to read his own post. He obviously doesn't know what it is about. This post was about supporting the troops -- and Ogre is afraid to discuss the facts that Bush's support for the troops does not extend to a 3.5% pay raise. Ogre proves that he is ignorant and built to stay that way. He's afraid to even discuss Bush's opposition to the pay raise for the troops that was passed by the House, and he is unable to comprehend how opposition that could also be interpreted as failing to support the troops. Ogre wants his one-sided, intellectually dishonest view of this situation to remain intact, and he'll ignore any facts that threaten his fantasy world. Ogre pretends that pointing out a fact -- that Bush has in fact threatened to veto a bill that raises the pay for US soldiers by 3.5% -- is an example of an imaginary ailment called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Let's go over that again: Ogre believes that recognizing facts is a form of derangement. Who's really deranged? Who is ignorant and built to stay that way? Who's afraid to discuss the facts?

Posted by: meatbrain at July 23, 2007 01:27 AM (zFinU)

26 Why do you refuse to address me and instead babble along about topics in which I have no interest on my blog?

Posted by: Ogre at July 23, 2007 01:31 AM (JzmO7)

27 Ogre now claims to have no interest in discussing the need to support the troops with a pay raise. How quickly his interest fades when inconvenient facts are presented.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 23, 2007 10:31 PM (sz8Ai)

28 You really can't talk about the actual topic that I'm talking about, can you? It is total Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Ogre at July 23, 2007 10:36 PM (JzmO7)

29 Edited by moderator for being off-topic and only written as a public post, not a comment.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 23, 2007 11:55 PM (gzjHf)

30 Address me if you like. Otherwise, I'm ignoring you.

Posted by: Ogre at July 23, 2007 11:56 PM (JzmO7)

31 "Otherwise, I'm ignoring you." Thank God!

Posted by: GM Roper at July 24, 2007 04:36 PM (CglRh)

32 I really tried. I did.

Posted by: Ogre at July 24, 2007 04:59 PM (oifEm)

33 Meatbrain had the answer right there and zoomed by it. He wrote that DEMOCRATS do not support the troops. Then he showed where you mentioned that DEMOCRATS do not support the troops a number of times. The post is about DEMOCRATS not supporting the troops contrary to their publicly stated positions. This is not about Bush supporting the troops. He is not in the Senate and he is not a DEMOCRAT. The question was not relevant to the post and Meatbrain is so far gone with BDS that he could not see that.

Posted by: Big Dog at July 24, 2007 05:02 PM (+q4Sb)

34 I think someone with this level of BDS seriously needs some mental help. I wonder what they will do when Bush is no longer in office (I think that will be a post tomorrow...)

Posted by: Ogre at July 24, 2007 07:24 PM (oifEm)

35 Holy cow! I'm both shocked and amazed. That's the first comment in a week that I've seen of meatbrains that didn't blame Bush for something or even mention Bush's name. Unbelievable.

Posted by: Ogre at July 29, 2007 11:07 PM (GYzrk)

36 You're lying, Ogre. See the comment above, posted at 5:31 PM Monday, Jul 23 , 2007.

Posted by: meatbrain at July 31, 2007 10:25 PM (zFinU)

37 Wow. You really don't have a clue, do you?

Posted by: Ogre at July 31, 2007 10:30 PM (GYzrk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
38kb generated in CPU 0.0675, elapsed 0.1948 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.1549 seconds, 226 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.