TLFKRF, Tulsa (11/9/2009 11:01:52 PM)

Typical democrat spending bill wrapped up in a sentimental package. "We need to help the vets" is the cry, while this bill does little to actually help anyone. STOP WASTING OUR MONEY!

truth fairy, (11/9/2009 11:04:48 PM)

Dr. Coburn is displaying serious passive aggressive tendencies by keeping these patients waiting so long.
At least their feet aren't in the stirrups.

FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (11/9/2009 11:10:19 PM)

Whose money? I suppose it might be possible to differentiate your tax dollars from the tens of millions of other americans who pay taxes. But I don't think that is very realistic. Our vetrans deserve better. It's shamful to play politics when dealing with vetrans affairs.

irwindale, Tulsa (11/9/2009 11:18:34 PM)

...the most recent have enlisted. Yet I will say not for three and four tours.

We are forgetfull are we not.

Take care of our team.

Let us change the use of our new 10 North Yale Facility from Tulsa's newest homeless shelter to a facility for our returning veterans.

Our homeless have been forced to relocate from the downtown area due to concerns over image. Safety. Some say personal development.

Tulsa needs youth in leadership. It got you here before.

Opinion

The image of

2ndjoyce, BA (11/9/2009 11:27:19 PM)

Remember this man's antics at election time please!

Thunder196, Tulsa (11/9/2009 11:58:20 PM)

From what I can find out, this bill excludes a lot of vets. All vets should be receiving more benefits and help not just those serving now.

Proud Liberal, Weatherford (11/10/2009 12:00:12 AM)

Coburn never had a problem voting FOR war, but he won't allow a vote to fund veterans care? Hypocrite!

He is why we should not have this arcane system which allows a single kook to hold a bill hostage. Vote his sorry @ss out!

Elusive, the burbs (11/10/2009 12:18:44 AM)

Begich said "“There is no price too high to take care of our veterans"

Yes there is, typical democrat spending without having a way to pay for it. Yes we support our vets but you can't lose all common sense. They don't see the big picture. You have to cut spending somewhere to pay for these programs. That is what Coburn proposed but No, they just want to spend, spend, spend, print more money.

FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (11/10/2009 1:34:57 AM)

They could knock off one fighter jet and pay for this bill 5 times. Now tell me what is one jet fighter to support vetrans who have lost eyes, arms, legs, head trauma and all that. Build the jet next year. Support our vets now.

FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (11/10/2009 1:35:55 AM)

I'm saying Coburn could negotiate with the dems to defer 1 fighter for a year and pay for this.

Elusive, the burbs (11/10/2009 1:52:02 AM)

I agree, find a way to pay for it and I'm all for it. I support our Vets.

SoonerDJ, Lisbon, Portugal (11/10/2009 4:04:06 AM)

A Jet costs a lot less than 4 Billion. The new USS New York cost 1 Billion to build. The Stelath Bomber is the most expensive and costs almost 800 million to make, but there are only 20 in service. The popular F-18 Super Hornet costs 50 million to make. So it would take a lot of jets to pay for this. I would like if the TW would lay out what this Bill actually does. I'm all for Vet Benefits since I'll be one fairly soon, but I want to know exactly what benefits. Honestly they should tie this in with the Defense Budget next year if they want it to pass.

gba, (11/10/2009 4:31:02 AM)

you okies amaze me, one side of your mouth you speak of taking care of the troops,fly the flag,war heros,wounded soldiers
the other side of your mouth you say,not out of my pocket,let some one else pay for it,not me,dont touch my money
your motto seems to be....do as I say,not as I do
coburn is one of the biggest hawks in washington,yet he is stalling this bill
AMAZING !!!!!!!!!

OUKW, TULSA (11/10/2009 5:09:29 AM)

this guy is a joke. beyond me why people continue to vote this clown in. get what you deserve.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/10/2009 5:27:25 AM)

Some perspective. In one bill (National Defense Authorization Act 2009) there were 39 BILLION dollars in earmarks placed in the bill by congress.

Senator Coburn took the floor during debate on this bill and held up proceedings (famously describing armadillos on his property). Was he protesting earmarks? In that bill, as in this one, he was making the judgment that veterans were not a high enough priority to warrant additional help.

GBA's point about agitating for war, and paying lip-service to the troops and walking away from the human cost is spot on.

Happy Veterans Day.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/10/2009 5:45:58 AM)

One quick point. If you can sit at your computer and post an uninformed opinion here, please be advised you can use that same computer to actually research primary sources and learn something about the topic you are spouting off on.

This ranges from politics to global warming, to virtually any topic you choose. The gamut ranges from government reports, scientific reports, and university research.

And you can do this as you sit there in your underwear while wearing a cowboy hat with tea bags dangling from it.

The topic at hand boys and girls is Senator Coburn and senate bill S 1963. You can actually read the dam* legislation yourself. THEN as you flail us with your opinion, it will be leavened with a portion of fact.

reckless abandon, Tulsa (11/10/2009 5:53:13 AM)

Dr. I Know Better Than Anybody Else is still at it. I'd think he would want to lower his profile with the Ensign scandal under investigation. And with much of the horrible conditions at VA hospitals and the plight of injured veterans in the news, his stance in inexcusable.

Alan Shore, (11/10/2009 5:58:14 AM)

as opposed to when Republicans use Veterans as pawns for...everything else?

Isaac Parker, Tulsa (11/10/2009 5:58:40 AM)

Everyone supports our veterans, but if we don't get control of government finances, we can forget about benefits. These folks spend like a teenager with a credit card. Good work Tom!

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/10/2009 6:17:12 AM)

Hanging Judge: Last one before I cool off as the dog takes me for a walk:

Absolutes are treacherous. "Everyone" is an absolute. Even within the confines of the comments here "Everyone" does not support veterans. And Senator Coburn clearly does not support veterans.

As I said before, I encourage actually looking at the legislation. You don't have to read every word to understand what the legislation is about.

Surely the hanging judge is accustomed to considering the actual evidence before pronouncing a verdict?

Or is the avatar intended to communicate that your mind is already made up regardless of the facts? (Very common approach here).

born okay the 1st time, tulsa (11/10/2009 6:27:49 AM)

Ill say one thing. Go read the bill yourself. Then make a judgment.
Most of you wont & will continue to blindly bash, for the sole reason, 'because you can.'

Travelin Man, tulsa (11/10/2009 6:39:23 AM)

You can tell the supporters for Coburn, they are not veterans who need care,Coburn and Inhofe had no trouble voting for war,They use there office for getting their name in the paper.guess Coburn doesn't care about our soldiers health.

droopy, wagoner (11/10/2009 6:40:11 AM)

Thank you Sen. Coburn. Keep holding the Democrats feet to the fire.

Isaac Parker, Tulsa (11/10/2009 6:40:50 AM)

Loki, the following is from your profile:

CAVEAT LECTOR... Retired military. Disabled American Veteran, to the extent labels matter. Prodigal Okie --- couldn't wait to leave and cheerfully returned after an extravagant number of miles.

First, thanks for your service. Second, isn't a prodigal a "reckless spendthrift"? So much for your objectivity. I certainly don't need a lesson in objectivity from the likes of a looney leftist, such as yourself. Go walk your dog and ponder your stupid statements.

Here's a "treacherous absolute" quoted by yourself..."Senator Coburn clearly does not support veterans". What a stupid, uninformed, dogmatic statement.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/10/2009 6:54:50 AM)

Issac Parker: The prodigal reference was to the parable from Luke in the New Testament about a son who wandered afar and then came to his senses and returned.

The evidence that Senator Coburn does not support veterans is in the actual article itself..."HE HAS PLACED A "HOLD" ON THE BILL SUPPORTING VETERANS.

The fact you recklessly infer I am a "looney leftist" indicts the objectivity you claim to possess and descends into the mindless name calling so typical of this forum. Anyone who disagrees with you deserves an ad hominem attack. That does not testify to your purported objectivity.