http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176606,00.html

One reason why this has happened is because these are not true debates. There is a "Theme" that is supposed to be ascribed to each "encounter" in any debate, but they NEVER follow those "Themes", in fact they never follow any logical pattern on ANY topic because they do not have time to answer, and it has become a sick form of "American Political Idol"... which WE have allowed to happen.

Another problem is that the "moderators" are Journalists instead of college level debating professors and debate judges. I have seen these people in action and they would never allow the participants to change the subject or evade their respective roles by throwing unsubstantiated rumors, innuendo and/or a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts into the mix.

These exchanges we have seen are a far cry from any real debate. Until that changes, we will get the same drivel over and over, and people like Sarah Palin will actually get a place on national TV (hooked up to a wire) pre-programmed to respond with 10 or 15 key words needed to assuage the masses, instead of INSIGHT into the actual problems of our day, such as was the case during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Where oh where are the Bill O'Reilly's of the world? Now that man can debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176606,00.html

One reason why this has happened is because these are not true debates. There is a "Theme" that is supposed to be ascribed to each "encounter" in any debate, but they NEVER follow those "Themes", in fact they never follow any logical pattern on ANY topic because they do not have time to answer, and it has become a sick form of "American Political Idol"... which WE have allowed to happen.

Another problem is that the "moderators" are Journalists instead of college level debating professors and debate judges. I have seen these people in action and they would never allow the participants to change the subject or evade their respective roles by throwing unsubstantiated rumors, innuendo and/or a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts into the mix.

These exchanges we have seen are a far cry from any real debate. Until that changes, we will get the same drivel over and over, and people like Sarah Palin will actually get a place on national TV (hooked up to a wire) pre-programmed to respond with 10 or 15 key words needed to assuage the masses, instead of INSIGHT into the actual problems of our day, such as was the case during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

As to who supports the Veterans and how did they vote on Veteran's issues? Wheres our dis-interested so-called MSM?

From General(Smedley) Butler's "War is a Racket":
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face"! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it. . .

John McCain's record on Veteran's issues:
Veterans Groups Give McCain Failing Grades. In its most recent legislative ratings, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans gave Sen. McCain a 20 percent rating for his voting record on veterans' issues. Similarly, the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a "D" grade for his poor voting record on veterans' issues, including McCain's votes against additional body armor for troops in combat and additional funding for PTSD and TBI screening and treatment.

McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans' Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans' health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans' health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)

McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans' Benefits, Including Healthcare. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted at least 28 times against ensuring important benefits for America's veterans, including providing adequate healthcare. (2006 Senate Vote #7, 41, 63, 67, 98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes #55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes #40, 48, 145; 2003 Senate Votes #74, 81, 83; 1999 Senate Vote #328; 1998 Senate Vote #175; 1997 Senate Vote #168; 1996 Senate Votes #115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes #76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote #306; 1992 Senate Vote #194; 1991 Senate Vote #259)

McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans' benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)

McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)

McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)

McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)

McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)

McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)

McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)

McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)

McCain opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans' Health Care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans' health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans' population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)

McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans' Care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)

McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)

McCain Opposed the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Was Too Generous. McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would "encourage more people to leave the military." (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)

Disabled American Veterans Legislative Director Said That McCain's Proposal Would Increase Costs For Veterans Because His Plan Relies On Private Hospitals Which Are More Expensive and Which Could Also Lead To Further Rationing Of Care. "To help veterans who live far from VA hospitals or need specialized care the VA can't provide, McCain proposed giving low-income veterans and those who incurred injury during their service a card they could use at private hospitals. The proposal is not an attempt to privatize the VA, as critics have alleged, but rather, an effort to improve care and access to it, he said. Joe Violanti, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would increase costs because private hospitals are more expensive. The increased cost could lead to further rationing of care, he said." (Las Vegas Sun, 8/10/08)

Key Votes by Barack Obama:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/

Improve veterans' mental health treatment & PTSD benefits. (Feb 2008)
Address the deficiencies in the VA system. (Jun 2007)
The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits. (Jun 2007)
Make sure the outpatient facilities work for veterans. (Jun 2007)
Comprehensive plan for our veterans healthcare. (Mar 2007)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Excellent post, TubeBoob.

Yet so many still insist that McPalin is the better choice? It just defies logic that any Veteran would give the man credit for anything after reading that list, let alone their Vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
Excellent post, TubeBoob.

Yet so many still insist that McPalin is the better choice? It just defies logic that any Veteran would give the man credit for anything after reading that list, let alone their Vote.

Those "Veteran's bills" that McCain voted against were full of pork. Something that McCain will never compromise on. Earmarks requsted by senators are usually full of money for pork projects.

In his THREE years as a senator, Obama requested roughly $740 million bucks.

But even that is peanuts compared to Sen.Hillary Clinton's request for nearly $2.3 Billion bucks in federal earmarks for 2009!

Interesting you don't mention the pro-veteran bills Senator McCain did approve and voted on.

Liberals...

quote:

Originally posted by badmac933:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
Excellent post, TubeBoob.

Yet so many still insist that McPalin is the better choice? It just defies logic that any Veteran would give the man credit for anything after reading that list, let alone their Vote.

Those "Veteran's bills" that McCain voted against were full of pork. Something that McCain will never compromise on. Earmarks requsted by senators are usually full of money for pork projects.

In his THREE years as a senator, Obama requested roughly $740 million bucks.

But even that is peanuts compared to Sen.Hillary Clinton's request for nearly $2.3 Billion bucks in federal earmarks for 2009!

Interesting you don't mention the pro-veteran bills Senator McCain did approve and voted on.

Liberals...

I think it's interesting you didn't mention any of "pro-veteran" Bills, not even #1.

So... what pro-Veteran Bills DID he approve of, and vote FOR? Can you name just #1 or #2?

Hey, Moderators... I don't know how you managed that, but I am Grateful!

Truly, thanks a Lot.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176606,00.html

One reason why this has happened is because these are not true debates. There is a "Theme" that is supposed to be ascribed to each "encounter" in any debate, but they NEVER follow those "Themes", in fact they never follow any logical pattern on ANY topic because they do not have time to answer, and it has become a sick form of "American Political Idol"... which WE have allowed to happen.

Another problem is that the "moderators" are Journalists instead of college level debating professors and debate judges. I have seen these people in action and they would never allow the participants to change the subject or evade their respective roles by throwing unsubstantiated rumors, innuendo and/or a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts into the mix.

These exchanges we have seen are a far cry from any real debate. Until that changes, we will get the same drivel over and over, and people like Sarah Palin will actually get a place on national TV (hooked up to a wire) pre-programmed to respond with 10 or 15 key words needed to assuage the masses, instead of INSIGHT into the actual problems of our day, such as was the case during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Weatherguesser,
I was actually sort of agreeing with you until the last paragraph. My only comments with your post are:

1) Why did you have to make it a partisan attack? The comments you made in the first two paragraphs apply to ALL candidates and parties, yet you want to single out only one. Biden acted no differently than Palin (insight into actual problems?).

2) You state that another problem is that the "moderators" are Journalists. I find it hard to apply the term journalist to the moderators. To me, a journalist is engaged in journalism, which is writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts, or a description of events without an attempt at interpretation or personal bias. The people used as moderators have not met that definition. Author (non-fiction, fiction) may be a better term to call them.

3) As for using college level debating professors and debate judges, you stated that you have seen these people in action and they would never allow the participants to change the subject or evade their respective roles by throwing unsubstantiated rumors, innuendo and/or a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts into the mix. This is assuming they know everything (can someone know everything?) and can recognize an unsubstantiated rumor or a misrepresentation of the facts. They must also prevent personal bias from entering their duties as a moderator. This is a hard thing to do (see my comment #1 as an example).

quote:

Originally posted by mattkay4:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill_Fold:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176606,00.html

One reason why this has happened is because these are not true debates. There is a "Theme" that is supposed to be ascribed to each "encounter" in any debate, but they NEVER follow those "Themes", in fact they never follow any logical pattern on ANY topic because they do not have time to answer, and it has become a sick form of "American Political Idol"... which WE have allowed to happen.

Another problem is that the "moderators" are Journalists instead of college level debating professors and debate judges. I have seen these people in action and they would never allow the participants to change the subject or evade their respective roles by throwing unsubstantiated rumors, innuendo and/or a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts into the mix.

These exchanges we have seen are a far cry from any real debate. Until that changes, we will get the same drivel over and over, and people like Sarah Palin will actually get a place on national TV (hooked up to a wire) pre-programmed to respond with 10 or 15 key words needed to assuage the masses, instead of INSIGHT into the actual problems of our day, such as was the case during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Weatherguesser,
I was actually sort of agreeing with you until the last paragraph. My only comments with your post are:

1) Why did you have to make it a partisan attack? The comments you made in the first two paragraphs apply to ALL candidates and parties, yet you want to single out only one. Biden acted no differently than Palin (insight into actual problems?).

2) You state that another problem is that the "moderators" are Journalists. I find it hard to apply the term journalist to the moderators. To me, a journalist is engaged in journalism, which is writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts, or a description of events without an attempt at interpretation or personal bias. The people used as moderators have not met that definition. Author (non-fiction, fiction) may be a better term to call them.

3) As for using college level debating professors and debate judges, you stated that you have seen these people in action and they would never allow the participants to change the subject or evade their respective roles by throwing unsubstantiated rumors, innuendo and/or a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts into the mix. This is assuming they know everything (can someone know everything?) and can recognize an unsubstantiated rumor or a misrepresentation of the facts. They must also prevent personal bias from entering their duties as a moderator. This is a hard thing to do (see my comment #1 as an example).

All I can say is that as the holder of a Master's Degree in education, and a teacher for 31 years now, I know what a real debate is. I have not only taken students to College Level debates, I have also particpated in debate when I was in High School. Does that make me an expert? Not in the least. But it does make me more "expert" in my knowledge of true debating than most of the people in here.

As per your "Journalists" comments?

(Wikipedia) Jim Lehrer graduated from High School in San Antonio Texas, where he was one of the three sports editors at the Jefferson Declaration. He also graduated from Victoria College and the Missouri School of Journalism at the University of Missouri. He is also a Marine.

Gwen Ifil? Boston Herald-American, reporter, 1977-80; Baltimore Evening Sun, reporter, 1981-84; Washington Post, political reporter, 1984-91; New York Times, Washington, DC bureau, began as Congressional correspondent, became White House correspondent, 1991-94; NBC News, Washington, DC bureau, chief Congressional and political correspondent, 1994-99; Washington Week in Review, panelist and occasional guest moderator, 1992-99, moderator and managing editor, 1999-, and senior political correspondent for PBS's "Newshour With Jim Lehrer".

They are both among the Finest "Journalists" in the country. Add to all that the fact that BOTH political teams CHOSE these people (from a lis) to moderate the recent "almost"debates...?

My personal comments about the Palin-McCain team are my opinion. In my opinion, she is unworthy of the office of Vice President because she is not intelligent enough. In fact, I consider her to be bereft of any political-intellect.

Why should you folks be upset over the so-called debates- for years the Dems took great pride in gutting the military, reducing strength, cutting back on equipment, reducing training money till it squeaked and we walked/simulated most everything, and then sent us home after they micro managed deployments into fiascos.. The Republicans beefed us up, but then deployed the hell out of us and stretched our string alomost to the breaking point. There seems to be no middle ground- then only thin both parties have in common is a lust for power, and the ability to lie about everything!

I still think both candidates get off light when comes to Vet issues, but a lot of questions didn't steer them in that direction. Most of that debate was focused on the economy and a little about the "war". With the next debate a lot of question will come from every day joe, and I hope a lot more questions about vet care will be asked. And another thing, I would like see Sen McCain defend his vet voting record, on live TV.

He will NEVER do that.