squinney wrote:Breakdown of the 108th, which is the one Democrats would have been referring to in the aforementioned Republican "who served."
House: 227 Republicans, 210 Democrats, 1 Ind.
Senate: 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 Ind.
77 women served in the 108th, 63 in the House and 14 in the Senate. Of the 63 in the House, 42 are Democrats. In the Senate, 9 of the 14 are Democrats.
153 members of the 108th had some form of military service. The House had 117 veterans, with 69 being Republican and 48 Democrats. The Senate had 35 veterans, with 19 being republican and 16 being Democrats.
(Source:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21379.pdf)
Hmmm. I used numbers from the 109th for my calculations, so they might be off a bit.
Something else I found interesting was looking at how many served in combat. They are 5 each party, and those Republicans who were in combat appear to be the more moderate ones. Same is probably true for the Democrats. That's just for the Senate though, there appear to be too many House members to count out the ones who served in combat.
McGentrix wrote:FreeDuck wrote:No? How do you interpret the data, McG? I think that is the question. As it stands, it's just data. What conclusion do you draw from it?
I interpret this as a counter to posts like
this one.
It presents current information in an easy to understand format.
How, specifically does it counter that post?
For clarity:
Of 538 representatives in the 108th, only 28% overall had some form of military service.
Republicans held 278 seats, and Democrats held 258.
Out of the 153 veterans, 88 total (69+19) were Republican and 65 were Democrats. As a percentage, 31.6 % of Republicans in the 108th served, (88/278) and 25.2% of Democrats served.
Of those elegible, meaning if we take out the 77 females that wouldn't have served in WWII, Korea or Vietnam, with 51 being Democrats, we get:
252 Republican men, of which 88 served, or 24.9%.
207 Democrat men, of which 65 served, or 31.4%.
Again, it doesn't change anything, or matter.
The point remains that the majority of those that were all gung-ho about going to war, lying to start a war, and are profiting from said war, did not serve.
That was the point of previous threads.
(And, for clarity, this is in reference to Iraq, not Afghanistan.)
squinney wrote:Again, it doesn't change anything, or matter.
The point remains that the majority of those that were all gung-ho about going to war, lying to start a war, and are profiting from said war, did not serve.
That was the point of previous threads.
(And, for clarity, this is in reference to Iraq, not Afghanistan.)
You mean to 99 Senators who voted to approve the war??? Are those the "war mongers" you refer to??
She said gung ho about the war, lying about the war and profiting about the war.
Most democrats who voted for the war did so with the understanding that it was going to be a last resort and the UN process and all options were going to be used before going to war. Bush and administration did not keep that understanding and they were the ones who were so gung ho about the war (question of degrees) and lying about the war and are profiting from the war.
