McCarthy, you show absolutely no regard for the well being of our troops. You are acting as if you are no more than a political pig.

This war is not for your amusement.

Recast your vote. Show that your vote was only a temporary lapse into insanity.

Show America that you support our troops no matter your feelings about the War.

Give our troops the tools they need to save themselves from injury or worse.

dude has nice hair, though.

--virgil

I thought Obama won the war in Iraq and Afganistan and the troops were back at home collecting welfare checks?

You mean to tell me Obama is not going to get the troops out any sooner than what George Bush agreed to??

Funny how many Democrats from California voted no.... I wonder why??

Mexico,

If you thought the war was already won. Why would you worry about when the troops come home?

No matter the current status of the war. No matter your feelings of the war. I would think that you would be the last member of this board that could justify not funding our troops.

It makes no difference how some one else's representative or senator voted.

YOUR CONGRESSMEN VOTED TO NOT FUND THE TROOPS.

What Obama or anyone else would opine on the matter is of no importance.

Your Congressmen voted to not support the troops.

dude does have nice hair.

--virgil

Why won't the Republicans support the troops?  Why do they hate the military?

Jealousy?

venality !

--virgil

Mexico,,

Do you support our troops?

Will you continue to support   Your representative, who does not support our troops?

A man whose vote will always be for the good of the party. Not the Nation.

A man whose vote will always put the party before the troops.

Tkozy,

I'm curious if you think the eleven Democrats in California who also voted no do not support our troops?  How do you regard their vote?  If McCarthy, as you state, is a man "whose vote will always put the party before the troops," what does this mean about Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Diane Watson, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Fortney Stark, Rep. Jackie Speier, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Dan Lungren, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Michael Honda, Rep. Bob Filner and Rep. Sam Farr?  For the record, this all comes from the site that you referenced in your own post.  What about other Democrats nationwide that voted against this bill?  Are they "Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ), Rep. Jared Polis (CO), Rep. Alan Grayson (FL), Rep. Michael Capuano, Rep. James McGovern,  Rep. John Tierney, Rep. Niki Tsongas (MA), Rep. Donna Edwards (MD), Rep. Michael Michaud and Rep. Chellie Pingree (ME), Rep. John Conyers (MI), Rep. Keith Ellison (MN), Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Rep. Donald Payne (NJ), Rep. Eric Massa and Rep. Jose Serrano (NY), Rep. Marcy Kaptur and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), Rep. Llod Doggett (TX), Rep. Peter Welch (VT) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI). 

As another poster (njalssaga) said, "Why won't the Republicans support the troops?  Why do they hate the military?"  Why do these Democrats refuse to support the troops?  Do they hate the  miltitary?  Or as you yourself stated, "No matter the current status of the war. No matter your feelings of the war. I would think that you would be the last member of this board that could justify not funding our troops."  Does the fact that Democrats also voted not to support this bill mean they are also members of those who are not funding our troops?

Did you happen to actually read this bill and the variety of other things it is funding BESIDES the troops?  An act that seems fairly shady, as if certain members of Congress decided to add on various spending ideas to a budget giving money to the troops, allowing them to claim any opposing the bill "hate the troops" while ensuring they don't have to actually try to get this extra money through other supplemental bills?

Let me give you an example: $137,198,000 for "Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities," an additional $9,551,000 for the Office of Inspector General, $500,000,000 for "Public Lw 480 Title II Grants," for the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund $360,000,000 for direct farm ownership loans, $400,000,000 for direct operating loans and $50,201,000 for unsubsidized guaranteed operating loands, with an additional $71,270,000 for subsidizing and modifying those loans, $5,038,000 for Federal Prison System Salaries and Expenses, $50,000,000 for Wildfire Management (just from one portion of the bill), at least $350,000,000 for the Office of the Secretary of Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (for that pesky swine flu), $71,606,000 in general expenses for Capitol Police, $989,628,000 for Embassy Construction, Security and Maintenance, $300,000,000 for Global Health and Child Survival, $200,000,000 for the International Disaster Assistance, and that's only to page 47 out of 74.

And my personal favorities, $1,016,215,000 for the Administration of Foreign Affairs Dipolmatic and Consular Programs AND $2,907,500,000 FOR THE ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND, for which $529,500,000 is for assistance to Pakistan.

So I guess what you really mean is everyone who voted no hates the world, farmers, sick kids, diplomats, treating swine flue, etc., right?  Because the fact that all this was added in to a bill that should have been designed to fund our troops ONLY isn't shady at all, it's more of that transparent government we have, right?  Next time, research what you are writing about before you start throwing out accusations.  By the wy, I got all of this info from http://www.rules.house.gov/... and remember, all this money is in ADDITION to funding previously granted to all of these agencies.

I thought we were broke? And where is all the screamign NOW about the money Obama is spending versus the screaming over Bush spending on the war?  Hmm.

Just in case you missed it, that is $39,570,707,000 just in some of the summarized bills (like I said, I only went through page 47) and not including military spending.  But hey, what's THIRTY NINE BILLION, FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND extra dollars, right? 

I'm curious if you think the eleven Democrats in California who also voted no do not support our troops?

Some of them support the troops in the best way possible--they want them brought *HOME*.  Others are concerned that the bill was giving away too many things to assure passage.

I'll guarantee you that *NONE* of those eleven Democrats ever accused anyone of not supporting the troops or not being patriotic because of a vote on an appropriations bill, the way that Republicans did over and over again.  The GOP set itself up for this and they solidly deserve it.  When they learn to put the country's interests ahead of politics, they'll stop doing things that hurt their cause.  Until then, they can enjoy their twenty-percent share of the electorate.

Ah Randomfactor, showing how the rules that apply to one side don't have to apply to the other.  So I'm sure that when you say *NONE* of those eleven Dems ever accused anyone of not supporting the troops, you are implying that all of the Republicans who voted no have, correct?  Do you have any actual researched facts for this? 

So while some Democrats can be "concerned that the bill was giving away to many things to assure passage," basically stating they had a principled reason behind their voting, can it not be possible that some Republicans were concerned that the bill was spending too much that didn't have anything to do with what the bill was supposed to be for?

Oh, and back to the they deserve it article.  Original.  So if one Republican votes no, the entire party are all troop haters, but if one Democrat votes no, he is concerned about the bill? 

You'd think if these Dems were so set on the troops coming home they would be pushing Obama to stick to what he said he would do, which is bringing the troops home early, instead of being happy with him sticking with Bush's original withdraw date.  Funny.

Ah Randomfactor, showing how the rules that apply to one side don't have to apply to the other.

No, I'm showing that "sauce for the goose" is equally flavorful for the gander.

.

So I'm sure that when you say *NONE* of those eleven Dems ever accused anyone of not supporting the troops, you are implying that all of the Republicans who voted no have, correct? 

No, I'm not implying that--nor do I need to to make my point.  The GOP had done that as a campaign strategy.  It's perfectly appropriate for the Democrats to turn it around on their hypocritical elephantine posteriors.

.

So if one Republican votes no, the entire party are all troop haters,

They *ALL* voted no.

.

Spam code GAMRA.  I'm rooting for GDZLA.

You'd think if these Dems were so set on the troops coming home they would be pushing Obama to stick to what he said he would do, which is bringing the troops home early,

I wish they would.  Although I think I know why he hasn't stuck to that promise.   I think he may yet honor that commitment, due to changing circumstances in Iraq.

Woman

No matter the current status of the war. No matter your feelings of the war.  

It makes no difference how some one else's representative or senator voted. 

YOUR CONGRESSMEN VOTED TO NOT FUND THE TROOPS. 

What Obama or anyone else would opine on the matter is of no importance. 

Your Congressmen voted to not support the troops.

Tkozy,

Really?  Is that the best you've got?  Can you remind me where I stated anything in regards Kevin McCarthy specifically, i.e.: He's my Congressmen?  Or is in generic, like if I'm a Republican, all Republican's are my Congressman?  By the way, love how you failed to answer or respond to any of my other questions.  Great evading technique.

How about some actual DEBATE? 

Did you read the bill?  What do you think of the Dems that voted no?  Troop haters?

Randomfactor,

I for one am amazed that the Republicans actually had the guts to vote no collectively.  I think they are finally getting the message that government spending is going to far.

I'm really curious.  Do you think that everything included in the bill was needed and/or necessary for our military?  From the items I included in my previous post, what do you think about this stuff being included in a bill for military funding?  It seems pretty cowardly to me.  Here, we'll put Consolate funding in the bill for the military, that way they have to vote for it or be troop haters?

As far as your generic statements regarding "The GOP had done that as a campaign strategy,"  I love how when one party does it everyone says it's not right, but as soon as they get the chance to do it, they say, "Well, the GOP did it so it's okay for us to do it."  Childish.

Woman,

A representative is supposed to vote the wants of his electorate. Not the wants of another locations electorate. If the representative votes in this manor. I have respect for his method of governance. If He votes the party first. Damn the electorate that put him in office. Darn the nation. Darn the troops. Then THE representative should be removed at once. At all cost.

If 7 democrats would have voted alongside McCarthy. Our troops would not have been funded.

Thank GOD those Democrats voted in support of our troops no matter the feeling of most, that would wish, the war had never been.

Oh, and tkozy?  I expect that you will be sending this statement to any and all representatives that voted no, regardless of political party, correct?

(Insert Representative Name Here), you show absolutely no regard for the well being of our troops. You are acting as if you are no more than a political pig.

This war is not for your amusement.

Recast your vote. Show that your vote was only a temporary lapse into insanity.

Show America that you support our troops no matter your feelings about the War.

Give our troops the tools they need to save themselves from injury or worse.

I mean, it's not like Democrats voting no is okay when Republicans voting no is not okay, right?  Cause that would be hypocritical.

Woman,

McCarthy reads my blogs. He has done so for sometime. I drew his interest by sending him repeated copies of my blog, by email, to his Washington office.

Actually people of all position. Of political environment read my blogs. But when I find it necessary I use Congress.org to post my blogs to a wider audience.

In this case the vote has been taken. Luckily for our troops the McCarthy view was rejected. That does not change the fact that I would wish that MY Congressman would recast his vote and reflect the honorable position held by most people of his district. No matter their affiliation.

The people of this district support our troops. No matter they be Republican, democrat or independent. They disdain a vote taken to support party over patriotism. They disdain a vote taken out of selfishness and self promotion.

Your Congressmen voted to not support the troops.

There hasn't been any appreciable number of Democrat Congressmen voting against war money since Viet Nam, when they took such a beating for it (helped establish the classic GOP talking point about Dems being soft on national defense) and started losing elections because of it.

This is why Bush was able to continue the Iraq fiasco long past the point of public support for it. The Dems were too afraid to touch the appropriations, and gave him everything he wanted.

THAT is the irony of all this: that the GOP is doing it now, and (probably correctly) thinking that they will not have to pay for the decision like the Dems did in the 70s and since.

I congratulate you, tkozy, on trying to make the public see that the shoe is on the other foot this time, but I highly suspect the GOP won't pay a decades-long price for this vote.

Why? Because the left accepts complexity and paradox. Trying to make a vote against appropriations equate with 'hates the troops' is not something most Libs will find attractive as an argument, and not just because of the sour taste.

DS,

AAHH, but I don’t have to convince the liberals.

It’s the conservative vote I am seeking.

In most cases I can stomach a deal with the liberals.

The conservative on the other hand. Almost always requires me to accept their form of morality in order that I get their definition of compromise.

their definition of compromise.

Which is "you compromise, and we'll jerk the football away at the last moment."  No thanks.

The way you guys can actually manage to straw man a debate is laughable.  I've lost interest in your repeating the same ol' "nasty Republican" arguments.  When you can come up with something new, like why it's okay for Democrats to be oppossed to something on principal but impossible for Republicans to do the same (with research and evidence by the way, not "just because we think they do/just because they are Republicans) or address the INSANE amount of spending hidden in this bill by Democrats, I'll be interested in resuming this debate.  Until then, I'm sure there are way more productive ways to waste my time, possibly by having discussions with people who actually use fact and research to back up their points.

The way you guys can actually manage to straw man a debate is laughable. 

Do you even know that a "straw man" argument is?  It's not evident from your writing.

Woman,

I was talking about McCarthy. Are you calling him a straw man?

Well now you have sunken into the arena of Ad homonym

You should be ashamed. :>)

Randomfactor and tkozy,

Ah, insulting the intelligence of a person who disagrees with you.  Both mature and profound, yes.  Did you even read what I said? I never said McCarthy was a straw man.  Maybe you should get with Random so he can apparently explain his concept of it to you since I don't know what it is (apparently, based on my writing.  That Random is sharp!).  I am calling the inability to answer questions from my original argument and diverting into a point that wasn't even part of the original question a straw man.  You know, kind of like when people try to argue against someone's position (are the Dems who voted troop haters/why is it impossible for Repubs to vote on principle) by creating a position (in this case, it could be referred to as a straw man or a red herring) and attacked a position that was never held by me (the entire "well you did it so we can" point of view), the person you are arguing against.  You implied that all Republicans who voted no are troop haters, which is a point that cannot be proved.  By attacking an argument that never existed instead of answering my original questions, which I believe you are unable to do...do you get it yet?

The absolute inability to have a valid debate with you guys is not only tiring but boring.  When someone has to result to insulting other people's intelligence, that is a sign to me that they no longer have anything interesting or worth my time to say.  You know what they say though, if you can't find anything to back up your claims, insult those who disagree with you.  Good job guys. 

So you *DON'T* know what a "straw man argument" is.  Didn't think so.

.

You know what they say though, if you can't find anything to back up your claims, insult those who disagree with you

And how's that strategy working out for you?

Woman,

You are starting to chafe my hide!!! Ha Ha Ha

Yawn.

RF, regardless of whether you agree with my definition of a straw man argument, you and tzkozy have both failed to answer my original questions posted when I was seeking a intelligent debate.  I am not going to sink to your levels of insults but will instead post my questions, again, in an easier format for you and tkozy to review and answer with what your buddy dirtyshirt refers to as research and proof, or at least some form of actual reasoning behind your argument (other than "they are Republicans, that's why! Evil!).

1) Are the Democrats who voted no on this bill also troop haters as you have stated Representative McCarthy is?  If not, why?

2) If the Democrats are not troop haters but seen by you as voting on principle, do you believe it is impossible that the Republicans who voted no did so on principle?  If impossible, why?

3) Do you believe the over 39 BILLION dollars worth of extra, non-military items added to this bill were necessary?  If so, why were they added to this bill?  If not, same question.

4) Do you think it is possible the Democratic party added these costs to a military bill for  political purposes, therefore allowing Democrats to throw a generalized "Republicans are troop haters" response to anyone who voted no?

5) Tkozy, if you demand a response from McCarthy regarding his stance, will you do the same for all Democrats who voted the same way he did?  If not, why?  It is solely based on the fact that he is a Republican?  Did you not mean that regardless of party stance, troop support should be present in anyone?  

I refuse to sink to the immature level of insults that some seem to want to sink too.  As a mature adult, I realize that many people will have different viewpoints on many things.  I do believe it is possible to have intelligent debate with people who have opposing viewpoints but once insults (chafe my hide...really?) and pointless attemps at thinly veiled sarcasm begin to take place, all hope for civilized discussion are lost.

RF, you like to take small portions of my posts to either back up a view that I have never expressed in an attempt to make your own point or distort my original meaning.  I don't believe based on tkozy's postings he's actually read anything I wrote but I am chafing his hide for disagreeing.  My challenge to you RF is to respond to the questions I have asked here (#1-5) without insults or sarcasm, but with the research and proof that you all seem to be so fond of.  If you can't do that, there really is no point in discussing this with you further.

you and tzkozy have both failed to answer my original questions posted when I was seeking a intelligent debate.

I think I answered them quite well.  Even quoted from you in answering, which completely negates your charge of "straw man argument"--which is defined as making up a false argument for the other side and then answering *THAT* instead of what was originally said.  You have, indeed, expressed the words I quote exactly as I quote them.

Repubwhigans as a party have pursued political strategy of demonizing Democrats as being unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops based on their budget votes (in some cases, procedural votes.)  Doing the same to them is simply calling them on that hypocrisy.

But I'll address your points in order.

#1.  No--because they have never claimed in the past as a party strategy that voting against one bill constitutes a policy statement, the way the Repubwhigans have.

#2.  I have yet to see Repubwhigans vote on *ANYTHING* on principle.   For example, I'll be interested in what McCarthy (who voted against the stimulus package along with every other Repubwhigan Congresssman) does when asked to extend funding for the F22 Raptor. 

#3.  The additional funds were *POLITICALLY* necessary, due to the presence of Blue Dog Democrats who forced these into the bill.  I would much rather have seen a clean bill passed over the objections of every single Repubwhigan--many of whom were inserting their *OWN* non-related items into the bill (like the ban on showing the photographs of our side torturing Iraqis.  I also disagree with the President's decision not to release those photos, by the way.

#4.  Yes, I believe they were added for political reasons, but *NOT* to cause the Repubwhigans to show their basic lack of support for the troops.  That was just an added benefit, easily avoided by the Repubwhigans either by voting for the damned bill anyway, or not claiming that a vote against appropriations is such a heinous offense.  In other words, the Democrats painted the floor--it was the Repubwhigans who chose to stand in the corner in the first place.

#5.  I'll leave that for tkozy to answer.  Did *YOU* take the Repubwhigans to task for questionning John Kerry's patriotism over his votes on appropriations bills? 

My general answer to your objections is that the Repubwhigans have to start following Buddha's advice "hurt not others with that which pains yourself."  (He's been quoted by so many...)  I'll start criticising Democrats for having affairs when Democratic strategy includes poking their noses into other people's bedrooms.  Deal?

Honestly...do you have any proof of anything besides the generalizations you are making on your own based on your own hatred of Conservatives or Republicans?

#1.  Show me where the GOP as a whole, meaning every Republican (Since you like to make such sweeping generalizations) used this as campaign strategy. 

#2.  How can you even be sure about this?  Do you think you could possibly be biased by your own hatred of the Republican party?  I personally am thrilled McCarthy stood his ground and voted against the stimulus package as the people belonging to the party he represents would have wanted him too.  Are you saying he didn't do that on principle?  How did you come to this conclusion?

#3.  Why can't we pass a bill related to funding the military that only has military involved costs? And are you saying since you *think* Republicans are inserting their own non-related items, it's okay for Dems to do the same?  How about across the board we expect all leaders to be transparent (like they are suppossed to be) and just give us a bill that isn't overloaded with extras? 

They did it so we can is not a valid argument for anything, Republican or Democrat.

#4.  So in summary, you believe that the Republicans should have voted for the bill to avoid being painted as troop haters, but that it was not set up intentionally by the Democrats?  So the Democrats used this opportunity to paint the floor to force Republicans to vote a certain way or be trapped in a corner...pretty much what I said.

#5. I wouldn't call out one Representative for certain behavior and demand he change said behavior if members of my political party were doing the same.  I would call out all who participated in said behavior if I felt that strongly about it, not just one person to back up my unjustified claims against their party.

I still am not sure where you are getting your facts other than your own bias...can you direct me to some links?

I demand a response from McCarthy because he is my representative.
I would not demand a response from any other representative whether they be Republican, independent  or Democrat
Why should I demand a response from another representative. I did not elect him. He does not represent me.
Do you have a responsibility to explain your voting recorded to me.
Should I even ask?

Your Congressmen voted to not support the troops.


As for Random,

You have abandoned me in the midst of my most dreary moment.

This ‘woman’ attacks me to my core.

And, ‘pufffffft’, you are gone.

Tkozy,

You don't seem to be understanding a core concept that just because "I demand a response from McCarthy because he is my representative" doesn't mean everyone feels the same way you do.  There are others who have different views and different political ideas which means that by McCarthy not voting for this proposition, he could very well be supporting other voters who may feel quite differently than you do.  Unless he's your Representative only, in which case, my apologies. 

I brought up other representatives in all parties who voted no because it seemed most of the hatred for McCarthy stemmed from his conservative/Republican politcal leanings, such as the comments regarding why Republicans hated the troops.  All I asked was if you felt this strongly about it, if it was political party directed or if you felt that way towards anyone who voted no.  You claimed he was putting party politics before troop welfare, so therefore I was curious as to how you felt about Dems voting no because if voting no means conservatives are troop haters, does voting no mean Democrats are troop haters as well?  It's a very easy question.

And what's with the woman being surrounded by apostrophies?  And attacking you to your core?  For seeing another viewpoint?  Really?

Woman,

Have you ever emailed  McCarthy. Unless you enter a zip code from his district. Your email is rejected. He does not want to here from people outside of his district. (unless of course you are corporate entity with  a check).
That’s the way all senators and representatives operate.

I use Congress.org. and I use this and other blogs. I think I am doing my part

As for this vote. I think it was inappropriate to vote the funds down.

But I also think it was inappropriate to vote to  justify the war in the first place

Send me back into the land of the opium poppie and I bet I'll get food and ammo sent back to me--I've seen this mans voting record---and they test US for dope,huh...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDOAmJYFFA

Tkozy,

So in response to another of my questions:

Do you think it is inappropriate for Congress, both Republican and Democrat, to use a military funding bill as a way to hid excess spending for non-military items?  Do you think that this sets up anyone who votes against the bill as being seen as not supporting the troops, thereby seeming to force their votes?  Vote for this or be seen as....

If you do feel this is inappropriate, how would you feel a problem like this could be handled?  It seemed to me if members of Congress could say, "We aren't voting for this measure because of excess spending," drawing attention to the problem, but wanting to vote on a measure funding the military measures only, it could send a clear message.  I think it's unfortuante that tricks like this are used which result in a no-win situation for anyone.  Don't vote for it: military hater.  Vote for it: Support unnecessary spending.

Thank you for being more civil.  Yes, I have emailed my representative before.  I do realize you must enter in your zip code.  However, if I felt strongly about the issue, I could go the old fashioned way and use the mail if I felt strongly enough.  I just was curious if you would email someone who was not Republican regarding these same issues?

Woman,

One mans pork is another mans sustenance.

The Thomas road money is one of the most egregious piece of pork ever created in Congress.

But hey. There are plenty in this community that think it is a GOD send.

You can’t put a dab of cream and a cherry on this and make Kevin look pretty. It was a insane vote.

Your Congressmen voted to not support the troops.

Woman.  You have made your good argument and pr oven your point admirably. It does no good to discuss anything with Trotsky or Random.  They are two of the ultra Progressives on this board.  They only through out sound bites they get from their ultra Liberal web sites.

Never,

You know that I am a centrist., registered Republican.  But humour me. When you mention the names Random and Trotsky. Which name do you refer to me?

I prefer the title of, ' Wordsmythe'.

NeverLeft,

Why thank you.  I appreciate that someone actually read what I wrote instead of looking for their key words to set them off on a liberal rant.  Maybe if I use large, colorful letters and repeat myself over and over without ever backing up my argument with anything other than bias and personal opinion....