Why Won't Democrats Fight

The Military Times' circulation is throughout the US Military, each branch - Army, Navy, Airforce, Marine Corps, and Coastguard - having its own sub-edition, in which a few columns and features are specific to that particular Service, but the overall content otherwise is identical. The subscriber base does skew unsurpisingly toward carreer military, and, consequently, away from lower, or "entry-level", ranks.

Also unsurprising is that, as with most things military, folks with no direct military experience broadly misapprehend the actuality and frequently opine in ignorance of applicable fact. To some of those experientially familiar with things military, such ignorant rantings do seem idiotic, and, also unsurprisingly, seem as well to be rampant among a rather clearly defined ideologic demographic.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

JustWonders,

I noted this on other thread, but here it is even more striking.

Your use of a Thoreau quote is wonderfully ironic.

Mr. Brown - I responded on the other thread, but please, continue to state your opinion if it entertains you, amuses you, and somehow helps you get through your day. Smile

0 Replies

Timberlandko writes,

Quote:

Also unsurprising is that, as with most things military, folks with no direct military experience broadly misapprehend the actuality and frequently opine in ignorance of applicable fact. To some of those experientially familiar with things military, such ignorant rantings do seem idiotic, and, also unsurprisingly, seem as well to be rampant among a rather clearly defined ideologic demographic.

Dang Timber, I can't figure out if this is your best Bush impression or if you really do talk this way. ;-)

Of course you do realize there is a difference between "misapprehending the actuality" and "misinterpreting the statistical analysis." ;-)

0 Replies

parados, you apparently ain't read all that much of what I've written.

0 Replies

timber,
I just graduated from newbie. I haven't had much time to read all your stuff. ;-)

0 Replies

No prob, parados. I'll save ya a little time; my stance has been consistent for over 40 years. Before that, I wasn't much into politics; hedonism has its attractions, but cold, calculating, objective pragmatism pays the bills more dependably.

0 Replies

Ah, another mathematician has joined the fray, Parados!

The more, the merrier <G>

0 Replies

P.S. to Timber: my prior statement (May of last year) to the effect that I resign from this forum is henceforth inoperative due to force majeure <G>

0 Replies

parados wrote:

No data to contradict your point? What the hell was your point? Are you now claiming your point was NOT to state that only 13% of the military is democratic?

No, parados, my point was to bring attention to the fact that the ones serving with me in the military are very rarely Democrats. Have you served? Bet you can't think of many friends with your politics who have either. I eagerly count down the days till I get out, yet at least I've been.

parados wrote:

Hell, the Annenburg study pretty much destroys your point since it shows 19% are Democrat and only 43% are Republican. A figure 150% off is NOT an accurate one by any stretch of the imagination.

This is the part where my furrowed brow and questions of your intelligence turned to outright laughter and a shake of the head. How in any way did you come up with those figures. In fact, forget that, we'll let you off the hook. The Annenberg study showed a 75 percent of the military (not just army mind you), trusts Bush over Kerry, indicating that they would support him in an election ... make sense? ... no? ... maybe? ... yeah I can tell. Now combine the original poll, as non-scientific as it was, with the results of the Annenberg study. 1+1= 4??? If in the original poll 75% said they supported Bush, and Annenberg counted 75% trusting Bush over Kerry, the statement that "the military overwhelmingly supports Bush over Kerry" should not only make sense but have some data backing it up, one scientific, and one not scientific.

Now, since you didn't bring any data at all I am wondering must I really go on. Must I?

0 Replies

lusatian writes,

Quote:

No, parados, my point was to bring attention to the fact that the ones serving with me in the military are very rarely Democrats. Have you served? Bet you can't think of many friends with your politics who have either. I eagerly count down the days till I get out, yet at least I've been.

Lusatian,
There you go again with your outlandish accusations. Lets see. Both my grandfathers served in WW1. My father served in Korea where he earned a bronze star. Both his brothers served. One of those brothers is a physicist and long time civilian employee of military, now retired, that worked on many of the air to air missile systems. My mother's only brother put 20 years into the AF. 2 of my brothers served active duty. My youngest brother was in a tank in Iraq in 1991. Another brother has a stepdaughter that joined the guard a few months ago. She graduated from basic in August. That is just family. Only one on that list leans to the right and many are or were far more active in politics than I am.

The real problem Lusatain is that you seem to have a limited life experience. I am well aware that many in the military are conservative and republican in nature. I have two first cousins that are presently working their way to their military retirement. One is a graduate of West Point. I would never claim they have the same politics I do. Their father Bill, married to my mother's sister, is one of the most republican people I have ever met. My brother who was an MP loved to get Bill wound up at family gatherings by asking him, "So, what do you think about Clinton?" It's too bad Bill had a stroke 4 years ago and is in a nursing home now at the age of 69. Even more unfortunate is that at the end of this year all his retirement savings from being a banker will be gone and his wife will be forced to leave the cost of his care entirely up to the government.

Lusatian, just because the people you get drunk with in the military share your viewpoint doesn't mean that everyone there does. Nor does it mean that democrats don't care about this country. Nor does it mean that democrats have never bled or died for this country. It is this disgusting implication that I have real problems with Lusatian. We are all Americans, you are NOT more American than anyone else. To claim you are shows a real failure to understand the constitution you took an oath to defend.

0 Replies

Lusatian writes:

Quote:

This is the part where my furrowed brow and questions of your intelligence turned to outright laughter and a shake of the head. How in any way did you come up with those figures. In fact, forget that, we'll let you off the hook.

Lack of intelligence? Maybe you should look at that furrowed brow in the mirror. Those figures are straight out of the Annenburg study. I realize you don't know how to find all the facts about a study as shown by the fact that you misread the Military Times study. So, let me post a link for the study that LISTS the EXACT figures I posted then you can laugh yourself silly as you realize who the idiot is.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf
Read the second sentence on Page 3 of the press release.

Quote:

Forty three percent called themselves Republican,

Funny, but that looks like a FIGURE to me. I don't know why you think 43% is NOT representative of the Republican make up of the military. I stand by my statement. Based on a SCIENTIFIC poll, only 43% of the military consider themselves to be Republican. Simple math, 100-43 = 57. Ergo, 57% of the military are NOT Republican.

0 Replies

Illiteracy (AnnenBURG?) and innumeracy combined in the same individual are rare but we have a sample right here, evidently <G>

0 Replies

The other interpretation if the Army Times stats aren't lying is that a percentage of those who enlisted in the military were too stupid to pass SAT tests and get into college.

0 Replies

Don't worry about bad spelling and laughable grammar on A2K, H of T -- there are those who were "left behind" in school.

0 Replies

HofT,

People that live in glass houses..... ;-)

0 Replies

Well, correcting poor English including misspellings or typos is not considered Kosher on this forum unless it's so gross that it damages the credibility of the poster. We do have a spell check in the post reply tool box. Grammar is another problem as some do post some pretty cryptic sentences and paragraphs. One poster who is now banned was posting sentences as paragraphs. No, he wasn't banned because of posting sentences as paragraphs. He was banned for consistently posting ad hominem attacks on other members.

0 Replies

Timber writes;

Quote:

No prob, parados. I'll save ya a little time; my stance has been consistent for over 40 years. Before that, I wasn't much into politics; hedonism has its attractions, but cold, calculating, objective pragmatism pays the bills more dependably.

I am all for cold, calculating, objective pragmatism and cold, calculating, objective pragmatism shows that Lusatian's statement to start this thread was innaccurate.

But nothing like a little hedonism now and again to make you appreciate the pragmatism. Or is that the other way around? ;-)

0 Replies

One could always indulge in pragmatic hedonism.

0 Replies

Lightwizard, great to see you, and admirable of you to improve on Gibbon - your title is more concise than his.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Lack of intelligence? Maybe you should look at that furrowed brow in the mirror. Those figures are straight out of the Annenburg study. I realize you don't know how to find all the facts about a study as shown by the fact that you misread the Military Times study. So, let me post a link for the study that LISTS the EXACT figures I posted then you can laugh yourself silly as you realize who the idiot is.

Parados, your sniveling indignation is rather of the high pitched sort. Could this be an indication to some sort of chip you have on your shoulder?

First allow me to clarify (as you seemed too dense and emotional to notice), exactly what figure I was referring to. Watch closely, you'll get it. Here's your original quote:

parados wrote:

Hell, the Annenburg study pretty much destroys your point since it shows 19% are Democrat and only 43% are Republican. A figure 150% off is NOT an accurate one by any stretch of the imagination.

Any good hard guesses as to what figure I mean? No? Okay, check this out:
- I refer to Military Times poll that indicates only 13% of the military is Democrat
- You fume and yap at my use of a non-scientific study
- I offer scientific study (Annenberg) that indicates 19% of the military is Democrat
- You say that the original figure is 150% off?????????

What is that?

Let's see, since you've thoroughly convinced me of your empirical and nuanced credentials here.
-13% Democrat to 19% Democrat (we'll add more to further help you out here)
- 59% GOP (Military Times) to 43% GOP
- Parados reasoning "FACTS ARE 150% OFF"

How do you figure?

Since you cannot help slinging the label of "idiot, idiot" in every post please explain this 150% business. Also, and more telling, regardless of the exact partisan numbers, both studies show 75% military (American military that is ... with you you never know), support President Bush. In short, even if the responses to party allegiance were somewhat different the end result in who the military supports during this election is the same. 75% President Bush, which would leave 25% to Pretender Kerry, right Parados? ... Or would that be 284%?

0 Replies

Why Won't Democrats Fight

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know