Comments on: Obama Campaigns in Puerto Rico

By: Phil Gallegos

Phil Gallegos — Mon, 26 May 2008 16:36:51 +0000

To USMARINE 1171.

Is the 1171 a reference to your MOS?

By: ron

ron — Mon, 26 May 2008 15:05:08 +0000

why is it Obama goes out of his way to campaign in Puerto Rico but couldn’t be bothered to campaign Kentucky or West Virginia and he expects these people to vote for him in the general election add these to Florida and Michigan and this is going to be a cake walk for Mccain what those he use for brains

By: Bill Clinton: 'She can still be nominated'

Bill Clinton: 'She can still be nominated' — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:54:18 +0000

BOZEMAN, Montana (AP) – Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that a victory by his wife in next month’s Democratic primary in Montana could force party leaders to reassess her bid for the presidential nomination.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been scrambling to close a widening delegate lead held by Barack Obama with only three contests yet to be decided.

Her husband told a crowd at Montana State University in Bozeman that Clinton victories in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 would boost her claim that she deserves the party’s nomination — and could persuade key superdelegates to support her.

“She can still be nominated. Don’t let anybody kid you,” Clinton said as the crowd of several hundred cheered. “All these superdelegates that have said they’re for this one or that one or the other, they can all flip. So you do matter.”

The former president also said his wife, if elected, would turn around the nation’s ailing economy, end the war in Iraq and enact universal health care.

His appearance in Montana came as Obama edges ever-closer to capturing enough delegates for the nomination.

By: vonay

vonay — Mon, 26 May 2008 02:46:11 +0000

Wow None of the new blogs are showing postings. Wonder what’s wrong?

By: Phil Gallegos

Phil Gallegos — Sun, 25 May 2008 23:16:10 +0000

The one cost no one seems to take into consideration is what educational benefits servicemembers currently have. All one has to do is go to the V.A. website and you will see all servicemembers are automatically enrolled in the GI Bill. The only way a servicemember would not be entitled is if they voluntarilly “dis-enroll” themselves. The bill also allows servicemembers the ability to contribute more to their accounts “IF” they want to have more money to utilize. In addition the this, while still in service, each servicemember can receive up to $3,500.00 annually to attend college/school if they want to.

If you look, the GI bill will fully fund a two year college degree. This is not bad. If they choose to add to their respective accounts, depending upon which college a servicemember chooses, they might be able to obtain a four year degree.

Perhaps the real reason so many senators chose not to support the bill is because they understand the cost analysis regarding what the bill currently funds versus what additional costs might cost when looking at the big picture.

I would point out that for those servicemembers…like myself…if you take advantage of the benefits while serving, you are capable of finishing a two year degree within a four year enlistmemt. With the availability of online courses, distance education programs, and other innovative learning tools, even those serving in Iraq, Afganistan, and other parts of the world are able to finish most of their coursework even in remote areas while deployed.

The one thing servicemembers will need to do is utilize their time productively!

Lastly, to Marine1171: if the 1171 a reference to your MOS? Try 0321!

By: the southern dem

the southern dem — Sun, 25 May 2008 23:14:01 +0000

I will try to answer this for the 5 th time…..these percentages are very small dem to repub so this is meaningless. Also unsure whether those who signed on were aware of the potential impact the final bill had in respects to offering so much that people would leave too early. And the third reason…statics can be made to support both sides and are meaningless unless there is truely accurate indicators used to evaluate the issue. There needs to be some type of protection for the services to ensure a mass use of the bill does not occur at one time.

By: the southern dem

the southern dem — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:46:28 +0000

I have tried and tried to respond to the above but have gotten no-where…I give up!

By: the southern dem

the southern dem — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:45:28 +0000

Tried to post several times and got tired of the rejections for some reason…no bad language or anything else. But to make another try…this percent of repubs is very small and likely represents those who signned onto to the original bill before it was made expansive and over the top. Additionally, the stats quoted are but stats…it would be interesting to put a limit on the implementation to control somewhat all those who want out at one time. Stats can be used to support either side and reviewed from different angles.

By: USMarine1171

USMarine1171 — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:37:16 +0000

If the concern is for the taxpayers’ pocket. Consider the additional cost incurred when someone leaves the military to work for a private contractor. A $60,000 swing. No matter how you look at it offering greater re-enlisment bonuses are more cost effective than allowing people to go to contractors. The people will pay regardless, the question is, how much?

The miniscule $5bn/yr cost of the Webb bill is chump change compared to costs for the war or contractors. Not to mention the $15bn that was never accounted for that was paid to contractors.

Keep an open mind on these issues.

By: USMarine1171

USMarine1171 — Sun, 25 May 2008 20:32:21 +0000

The censorship is horrible here.