Who supports the "TROOPS" more? IAVA publishes results

Looks like it's yet another LIE in the G.O.P. talking point hand book. What a surprise

And some people on ATS have been saying that b.s. that Republicans support the troops more. Looks like a big fat negative. Total 100 percent ownage.



How bad is the result? Across the board every democrat has stepped up for the military more than the republicans. The republicans got no higher than a C. The dems got no lower than a B. Looks like it's yet another Lie. BTW this is a nonpartisan website.

Look how many D's and F's in the G.O.P. . Yea, those candidates are stepping to the plate. As usual the bumpersticker American eagle crowd finds itself to just be talking loud and saying nothing. I am surpised. Wheres that Sempre Fi guy? Time to eat Crow, HOORAH


iava.org...


Don't know who is a democrat or a republican? No problemo . Here it is in all it's true american pride for the U.S. Military
:

bobgeiger.blogspot.com...

Wow that's like a heavy bat of reality hitting you square in the face if you were a G.O.P./RNC cheerleader.


Says in Jerry Seinfeld voice :: "that's a shame"

munches on food and smiling::





[edit on 24-10-2006 by MRGERBIK]

Hilary Clinton got a A- and Elizabeth Dole and frist got D's.
Hahaha, oh you gotta love it if you wanted to see the truth come out.

I.A.V.A. I loves ya. If only someone would fax that to Limbaugh/Hannity's desk,stat.


Jeff Sessions got a F and Trent Lott got a D. Man, is this a slaughter of perception.
If only we had a accurate media. Ann coulter would go into convulsions "Well....thats a liberal study"

Umm... dude you need to calm down, now can someone explain to me what those "grades" mean and how they are determined and who IAVA is. Thanks.

I don't need to calm down because I am perfectly calm. Nice try though,Westpoint



Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America IAVA is a nonpartisan group that studies military issues in America thoroughly.

And it's funny that 2 female democrat senators ranked the highest on 300 votes regarding military related issues.


LOOK at IAVA for yourself



It's all about projection though if you yell the loudest and say you are for the soldiers meanwhile shouting down your opposition then usually the majority of the public tend to believe who is screaming the most shrill.


You know, this chart should be made into the T Shirt. Because I see so many of those lame Support the Troops G.O.P. type colored stickers. And now you have the military buying this crap even.



I'd really like to see the detailed votes of what the Right refused for the military. And i'd like people to see it on T.V. underneath their name.



It's just lies,people. Democrats voted more for the military than the "GRAND OL Party" that american eagle symbol means nothing. It's just theater to dupe you into thinking they vote.

WORST administration ever for the military.
Best con job ever....

You still have not answered my question of what those numbers mean and how they are determined, as for IAVA, there's more there than meets the eye, "Non-Partisan"?, perhaps. As for how this administration has been to the military, well, we each have our own views.

Oh and one more thing, it's WestPoint23, ok?


[edit on 25-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Whatever. Some of the biggest military cutbacks ever recorded was made when a Democrat was in office. By the way, I am not biased because I really don't like the Democrat or Republican party.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

While the IAVA is not as far off the map as most anti-war groups (infact their founder has been called, and i quote, "a trojan jackass of the anti-war movement") there is a little something that bears mentioning...

First a and foremost go here and see what they base their ratings on.

Now realize that the group only has about 600 members, plus a 4 person board of advisors consisting of a few Vietnam era soldiers turned anti-war activists.

So what you've really got is an organization wherein more than 1% of the membership is paid staff, and it picked a few anti-war activists to grade congressional performance for them. Just because the group has initials doesn't make it all that meaningful. Maybe tomorrow night I'll go bar-hopping in 29 Palms and find 600 marines to back politicians that I like based on the fact that the party not in power can afford to throw up amendments that dont have a chance in hell just for the sake of looking good, when everyone with any political understanding at all knows that they would never put some of that stuff up there if they had the votes to put it through. That's called creating a record to run against: when you're in the minority you force the party in power to kill lots of nice sounding but impractical ideas so that when the next election comes around you can tell people that the other side hates veterans, widows, school children and puppies.

I happen to agree that the Republicans in many instances deserve a low rating from veterans. My problem is that I don't think this group had the political saavy to grade the Democrats realistically. They're forgetting that the unreliable vehicles and worn out body armor that George Bush sent our reserves into battle with in many cases should have been paid for by Democratic state governments, or in the case of federal troops, by the Clinton DOD. It's not like Bush took away stuff they used to have. Bush inherited an underequipped military from Clinton and, as Bush is prone to doing, sat around reading childrens stories instead of addressing the problem. A California National Guardsman who has to run around in worn out body armor has got a Democratic legislature to thank just as much as the Republican congress.

I am not going to get into the argument about which side supports us more...however I will say That the the pay and benefits were better when bush took office...HOOYAH GI bill!

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Scyman]