- This topic has 110 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2006 at 10:48 AM #39034November 2, 2006 at 10:58 AM #39037
PD
ParticipantDidn’t anybody crack even a teeny smile at Ricky the Squirrel’s story? I thought that just maybe some people who don’t like my politics might unbend a little bit and chuckle at my joke.
I was trying to lighten things up but I guess it did not work very well. 🙁
November 2, 2006 at 11:09 AM #39040CardiffBaseball
ParticipantThe same Chris Mathews who worked for Tip O’Neill? Yes he is a rapid conservative.
November 2, 2006 at 11:14 AM #39041sdcellar
ParticipantIsn’t that what all political discussions eventually become (random, incoherant)?
It’s really partisanship that serves to create so much blather about nothing. Both parties have their fair share of problems and it’s just too easy to point out what the other side does wrong–much easier than solving real problems.
Sometimes you don’t even have to solve problems. Think about it, if Kerry had taken the high road on this, he could have come out looking like a winner. Imagine if he’d said something along the lines of “I’m sorry for any offense I have made toward our service men and women. I must remember that it is far too easy to for an attack on the policy of the current administration to come across as an attack on the men and women serving our country. I will do my best to support your efforts on behalf of our country and work toward finding resolution to the conflict in Iraq, which is something I’m sure we all want.”
November 2, 2006 at 12:29 PM #39044zk
Participant“…he sobbed as he was driven away in the animal control van.”
Fanciful and funny. I got a chuckle out of that.
November 2, 2006 at 1:14 PM #39047Anonymous
GuestGypsy, excellent summary!
Sdcellar, it is not biased to say that Bush didn’t complete his ANG committment because that is well documented fact. The bias is when the Republicans try to sweep it under the rug.
PD, if it is really so important to you that your elected officials have military service, as you claim, then I find it hipocritical that you don’t even know which (if any) of your party’s representatives have served.
The bigger question for me remains, why do military people continue to lean heavily towards the Republican party? The answer must be Groupthink. The military has historically been supported better by the Republican party, and this idea has continued to be ingrained in the culture. Generally soldiers are taught to follow orders and not think for themselves or ask questions. As a result, even though the the Party is clearly no longer representing the military very well, the members themselves do now realize it or are afraid to speak up for fear of being different.
November 2, 2006 at 1:53 PM #39056ParticipantI said that I thought the President should be required to serve. Do I really need to spell out the military history of our recent presidents? Don’t we all know it already? The fact that I do not think I needed to provide a list is not an indication of whether or not I know the military history of my representatives.
My beef was and is with the partisan nature of the list provided and that it was held up as some sort of proof. There are hundreds of elected officials in Washington. Do you know the military history of them all? Further, we all only vote for a small number of those people.
A partial list is worthless.
November 2, 2006 at 2:02 PM #39057ParticipantAs for why the military tends to support Republicans, “groupthink” is certainly designed to make Democrats feel superior. How about this? Could it be that Republican military members were Republican before they signed up and before they even became part of the group? Do you think that Democrats who sign up go through some brainwashing program that turns them into mindless Republicans?
Maybe there are just more Republicans out there who feel that they are doing the right thing by joining the armed services and standing ready to give back to this great country.
November 2, 2006 at 2:54 PM #39067GuestPD, I doubt most 18 year old kids who are joining the military have given much (if any) thought to what political party they want to affiliate with. Their behaviors, to a large extent, are shaped by the military culture.
You imply that Republicans are more patriotic than non Republicans and that is why they join the military? You are clueless. Once again, sorry to burst your bubble but most kids join the military for MONEY and BENEFITS, bottom line. Patriotism and service to country is not that number one reason kids enlist. You lower the benefits and see how many people enlist, you’ll see how patriotic the kids really are.
The bulk of enlisted soldiers come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Very few rich suburban kids enlist in the military. In fact I can’t think of any that I have ever met that meet this profile (only Pat Tillman comes to mind). Are the poor kids more patriotic than the rich? Of course not, they just need the military more than the rich kids do.
November 2, 2006 at 4:04 PM #39072L_Thek_onomics
ParticipantAn 18 year old “kid” from a traditional family is a lot more mature
than a 45 year old liberal college professor. Senator Kerry started to
insult the military, you guys just keep adding to this crap, proving,
liberalism sucks. I have the suspicion “deadzone” means a large
portion of the elitist liberal brain.L Thek
November 2, 2006 at 4:41 PM #39075ParticipantDeadzone, did you enlist or pursue a commission? You certainly seem to be putting yourself out there as an expert. Perhaps you had not developed any political views by 18. When I was 18, I voted in my first election. It happened to be the election of 1988. I was registered as a Republican and voted for George Bush. I was also very patriot, even then.
November 2, 2006 at 4:50 PM #39076GuestPD, I served as both enlisted and Officer. Also have voted for both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The idea that people would actually vote the party line makes me sick.
I would agree that some political tendencies would have been started by 18 based on your family values (basically how your parents voted). However, the military culture has an enormous affect on young kids. For example, if I am a young Marine, and every one around me who I respect and trust is telling me the Republicans are better for the military, then I am inclined to think the same way.
November 2, 2006 at 4:51 PM #39078Participant“An 18 year old “kid” from a traditional family is a lot more mature than a 45 year old liberal college professor. Senator Kerry started to insult the military, you guys just keep adding to this crap, proving, liberalism sucks.”
What?
If you start out with the assumption that “an 18 year old “kid” from a traditional family is a lot more mature than a 45 year old liberal college professor,” then you can draw all sorts of conclusions. But that’s a pretty big assumption to start out with. Please explain how you figure that an 18 year old “kid” from a traditional family is a lot more mature than a 45 year old liberal college professor. And, also, please explain what “adding to this crap” means and how it proves that liberalism sucks.
November 2, 2006 at 5:14 PM #39082Participantdeadzone, I have said before that I do not vote party lines. I have cast votes for democrats and their causes. You are determined to be elitist.
November 2, 2006 at 5:21 PM #39085GuestIf being elitist means that I have the ability to think for myself then I am happy to be an elitist.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.