I'm somewhat disappointed by some of the comments here. Obviously a few of you didn't even bother to follow the link and read McCain's full statement. Here's the relevant part:

The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

I find it kind of hard to refute the logic in theory. Obviously it's cynical and wrong to oppose the GI Bill on the basis that it would reduce retention. But by the same token you can't oppose increased benefits for multiple enlistments on the basis that it would increase retention. What I suspect might be the case is that the benefits offered by McCain's bill even for multiple enlistments simply fall short of the ones offered by Webb's and probably amount to very little for single enlistments. Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't have gotten more votes.

I can understand the urge to turn every issue as merely a front for the pro-war/anti-war debate, but it makes our side look bad when you fire off knee-jerk reactions without even taking the time to read the arguments made by the other side.

It's only an issue when it hurts McCain's chances with the Jewish pro-Israel vote. Saying that Hurricane Katrina was just punishment for homosexuality or whatever is within the realm of acceptability for Republican discourse.

By the way, anyone remember this exchange posted in War Room months ago?

Stephanopoulos: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept [Hagee's] endorsement?

McCain: Oh, probably, sure.

Stephanopoulos: So you no longer want his endorsement?

McCain: I'm glad to have his endorsement.

My guess is Electro Robot is a libertarian of some sort. So, Electro, since you are constantly criticizing Obama/Democrats' lack of a foreign policy even when being offered examples to the contrary, please explain what YOU think the foreign policy should be and what they are doing wrong. That is, if you can speak in any tone other than blunt sarcasm.

but when it comes to "indirect" bullying -- "receiving hurtful anonymous notes, being socially excluded, or having rumors spread about them, including threats of physical harm" -- it turns out girls who describe themselves as attractive are 35 percent more likely to be victims.

Oh please. Rich people are also far more likely to be targets for assassination or extortion, but that doesn't stop people from wanting to be rich. I don't want to say that girls are catty and manipulative 'by nature' but the 'popular girl' culture in high school certainly is. Sure Tiffany may be the victim of malicious whispering between Ashley and Brittany one week - what they're not reporting is that most likely by the next week Tiffany and Brittany have made up and are spreading rumors about how Ashley slept with Brad. And of course in the meantime they're still going to all the parties and 'hooking up' or whatever while the rest of us playing Warcraft in our bedrooms could only dream of being part of that world. Those who seek out the spotlight of popularity have no right to complain about its side effects. After all, they could always come hang out with us nerds and goths instead if it really bothers them so much.

This majority of Californians are subverting the democratic process!

Let's see if I can summarize this: TCF notes a moderately interesting Times story and makes an ironic joke about the jihad glass ceiling. Trolls instantly respond with "OMG feminists want more women in jihad they are so dum lol" Do you realize how retarded you look when you get snarky without even having bothered to read what you're responding to?

It's funny: you complain about Broadsheet being full of predictable, narrow-minded garbage, yet you continue to post predictable narrow-minded garbage on every single fucking update. What is your motivation? Do you really think it's clever to point out for the hundredth time that feminists are hairy man-hating lesbians or that liberals love Islamic extremism? Or are you so utterly retarded that you actually believe these things? Why is it that Broadsheet is alone among Salon sections in the sheer volume of gutter-dwelling trash it draws to its comments page?

Look, I realize you're probably very disgruntled individuals for whom this is the only release from a dead-end monotonous job and perhaps even less satisfying home life. if you're carrying a chip on your shoulder against feminism or women in general, start a freaking blog already. Don't post your prepackaged one-liners here when they have no relevance and when you can't even be bothered to read what you're responding to. Please understand that any amount of ridicule you're able to heap on Broadsheet pales in comparison to the amount that you expose yourself to. You're not clever, you're not funny, and I really feel sorry for all of you.