Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama

Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

WormHeart -> Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 1:41:08 AM)
This is a bit interesting: Troops Deployed Abroad Give 6:1 to Obama quote: Individuals in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps have all leaned Republican this cycle, but the only branch in which that ideology has carried over to the presidential race is the Marine Corps, where McCain leads Obama by about $4,000. In each of the other branches -- including the Navy, in which McCain served when he was taken prisoner during the Vietnam War -- Obama leads by significant margins. "That's shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it's about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one" in Democrats' favor, said Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military. "That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans." SOURCE Interesting. WormHeart

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 7:41:02 AM)
yeah...believe me, most of them enlisted for the college money, not to serve... so in a sense, they don't want to follow their leaders and be in a combat zone.... (coming from a former marine only 3 months removed)

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 8:56:16 AM)
If the armed forces vote with their ballots as they apprently have with their wallets, look for the GOP to try to disallow their absentee ballots the way they tried to in 2000 and 2004.

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 9:01:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant If the armed forces vote with their ballots as they apprently have with their wallets, look for the GOP to try to disallow their absentee ballots the way they tried to in 2000 and 2004. i am starting to sense a dislike of the GOP from all of your previous posts...do you dislike them??? or are you the bipartisan type??? are you liberal or conservative??? libertarian??? green party??? pinko commie???[&o]

huangshan -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 9:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine yeah...believe me, most of them enlisted for the college money, not to serve... so in a sense, they don't want to follow their leaders and be in a combat zone.... (coming from a former marine only 3 months removed) If troops give to Democrats, logic dictates that they are cowards. Pathetic, pathetic U.S. military. I for one am ashamed.

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 9:20:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine yeah...believe me, most of them enlisted for the college money, not to serve... so in a sense, they don't want to follow their leaders and be in a combat zone.... (coming from a former marine only 3 months removed) If troops give to Democrats, logic dictates that they are cowards. Pathetic, pathetic U.S. military. I for one am ashamed. it's ok to hold an opinion of our military, but when you have to fight tooth and nail to get people to want to serve our country, then there is a problem... i can see how you dislike my logic, but there is something fishy with your statement... why don't you just come out and say it on why you dislike my statement, huangshan, instead of playing games??? (and yes, i am assuming you are)...if you are truly ashamed, then let me know...

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 9:23:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant If the armed forces vote with their ballots as they apprently have with their wallets, look for the GOP to try to disallow their absentee ballots the way they tried to in 2000 and 2004. i am starting to sense a dislike of the GOP from all of your previous posts...do you dislike them??? or are you the bipartisan type??? are you liberal or conservative??? libertarian??? green party??? pinko commie???[&o] As far as labels apply, I'm politically a rational anarchist, close to a Randite, and can get along with most of libertarianism in a pinch. Up to 2004, I voted GOP in every Presidential election - yes, even for Bush in 2000, although it required a lot of willpower to punch THAT chad - but the Republican Party has been abandoning its conservatism since Goldwater lost in 1964. (The first Republican I actually voted for was Nixon in '76, and believe me, that was a test of willpower too.) How about yourself?

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 9:27:44 AM)
As to my dislike of Republicans, i submit that is an error of composition. I dislike certain Republicans intensely, and disagree with some of their Party platform, but mosty I can live with most of what the GOP stands for. Do not confuse that with supporting the neoconservative takeover of the GOP - neoconservatism is antithetical to both traditional American values and with traditonial GOP positions. If you MUST know WHICH Republicans I have no use for, identify those whose views and actions advance the neoconservative agenda and you;ll be pretty congruent.

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 9:33:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant If the armed forces vote with their ballots as they apprently have with their wallets, look for the GOP to try to disallow their absentee ballots the way they tried to in 2000 and 2004. i am starting to sense a dislike of the GOP from all of your previous posts...do you dislike them??? or are you the bipartisan type??? are you liberal or conservative??? libertarian??? green party??? pinko commie???[&o] As far as labels apply, I'm politically a rational anarchist, close to a Randite, and can get along with most of libertarianism in a pinch. Up to 2004, I voted GOP in every Presidential election - yes, even for Bush in 2000, although it required a lot of willpower to punch THAT chad - but the Republican Party has been abandoning its conservatism since Goldwater lost in 1964. (The first Republican I actually voted for was Nixon in '76, and believe me, that was a test of willpower too.) How about yourself? i am a conservative with libertarian tendencies... in other words, i am for the most minimal government out there...problem is this direction is almost far gone, so i have to sacrifice my principles (the only time for the end justifying the means) for GOP... but i also totally believe "speaking softly and carrying a big stick" a la, we need a big military for the amount of control our market has on this world... domestically though, we need as minimal gov't as there can be...

huangshan -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 9:54:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine we need a big military for the amount of control our market has on this world... I would say almost the exact opposite. We have extremely strong economic ties to the other powerful nations in the world, ties that make war between wealthy nations extremely unlikely. I think a good back of the envelope strategy would be to take a good deal of time and energy spent on the military and protectionism and use it to invest in eduction and retraining for displaced workers. And for some reason, my other post isn't posting, so I'll edit it on to this one: quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine yeah...believe me, most of them enlisted for the college money, not to serve... so in a sense, they don't want to follow their leaders and be in a combat zone.... (coming from a former marine only 3 months removed) If troops give to Democrats, logic dictates that they are cowards. Pathetic, pathetic U.S. military. I for one am ashamed. it's ok to hold an opinion of our military, but when you have to fight tooth and nail to get people to want to serve our country, then there is a problem... i can see how you dislike my logic, but there is something fishy with your statement... why don't you just come out and say it on why you dislike my statement, huangshan, instead of playing games??? You were begging the question pretty gratuitously. Satire is an effective means to communicate problems in logic, but some people are immune.

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:19:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine i am a conservative with libertarian tendencies... in other words, i am for the most minimal government out there...problem is this direction is almost far gone, so i have to sacrifice my principles (the only time for the end justifying the means) for GOP... but i also totally believe "speaking softly and carrying a big stick" a la, we need a big military for the amount of control our market has on this world... domestically though, we need as minimal gov't as there can be... The interesting thing about the 'big stick' analogy is that the author expected the mere existence of the big stick to be sufficient to prevent it from having to be used very often, if ever. I find it regretable that you would consider the use of the American military to further American economic interests - that is a page right out of the neocons' playbook, and antithetical, if not antigonistic, to the libertarian/Rooseveltian principles you claim to espouse.

todd_t -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:23:29 AM)
quote: are you liberal or conservative??? libertarian??? green party??? pinko commie??? Thanks for your input, Senator McCarthy.

tafkam -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:26:50 AM)
quote: I find it regretable that you would consider the use of the American military to further American economic interests - that is a page right out of the neocons' playbook I know Swede is ignoring me (or so he says), but just some free advice.....the use of the word "neocon" virtually guarantees that nobody will ever take any of your positions that seriously....it ranks right up their with comparing someone to Hitler or the Nazis....

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:28:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan We have extremely strong economic ties to the other powerful nations in the world, ties that make war between wealthy nations extremely unlikely. The history of the three biggest wars of the past 150 years would say otherwise: American Civil War - the South's largest trading partner, the North. The North's largest trading partner - the South. First World War - Germany's largest trading partner - France. Second - Russia. Second World War - ditto, plus Japan's largest trading partner - China, and second largest - United States. One could almost make the case that strong economic ties make war MORE likely rather than less. Much depends upon the attitude of the trading states. If one or both (or all) of them decide that it is easier to simply TAKE rather than TRADE - as Japan did in China, and Germany in Russia - it becomes more likely that they will initiate a war. The converse of this is that the nations which prefer 'trade' to 'take' - historically, the United States position - are the LEAST likely to initiate wars of aggression. Until 2003, that is. Which brings us back to the neocon position of 'using the US military to further America's economic interests' - that is creeping this country closer to the 'take' mode and away from the traditonal American 'trade' mode.

todd_t -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:29:13 AM)
quote: the use of the word "neocon" virtually guarantees that nobody will ever take any of your positions that seriously.... Are you suggesting the neo-con philosphy does not pervade the current administration? Or that it's a myth entirely?

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:32:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: todd_t quote: are you liberal or conservative??? libertarian??? green party??? pinko commie??? Thanks for your input, Senator McCarthy. that was a cheap shot and uncalled for, and for that i discount your opinion more...you should look at the talks below to see just how humane they were, the fact of neglecting such demeans your merit... you are still a brother/sister in Christ and I forgive you.

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:32:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: todd_t quote: the use of the word "neocon" virtually guarantees that nobody will ever take any of your positions that seriously.... Are you suggesting the neo-con philosphy does not pervade the current administration? Or that it's a myth entirely? 'Neoconservatism' is the elephant in the GOP's room, which the Republican Party is doing its very best to pretend isn't there.

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:35:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan We have extremely strong economic ties to the other powerful nations in the world, ties that make war between wealthy nations extremely unlikely. The history of the three biggest wars of the past 150 years would say otherwise: American Civil War - the South's largest trading partner, the North. The North's largest trading partner - the South. First World War - Germany's largest trading partner - France. Second - Russia. Second World War - ditto, plus Japan's largest trading partner - China, and second largest - United States. One could almost make the case that strong economic ties make war MORE likely rather than less. Much depends upon the attitude of the trading states. If one or both (or all) of them decide that it is easier to simply TAKE rather than TRADE - as Japan did in China, and Germany in Russia - it becomes more likely that they will initiate a war. The converse of this is that the nations which prefer 'trade' to 'take' - historically, the United States position - are the LEAST likely to initiate wars of aggression. Until 2003, that is. Which brings us back to the neocon position of 'using the US military to further America's economic interests' - that is creeping this country closer to the 'take' mode and away from the traditonal American 'trade' mode. i understand where you are coming from, but i have a healthy fear of other countries over-running completely dis-armed isolationists, remember China and Britain way-back-when...

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:38:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan We have extremely strong economic ties to the other powerful nations in the world, ties that make war between wealthy nations extremely unlikely. The history of the three biggest wars of the past 150 years would say otherwise: American Civil War - the South's largest trading partner, the North. The North's largest trading partner - the South. First World War - Germany's largest trading partner - France. Second - Russia. Second World War - ditto, plus Japan's largest trading partner - China, and second largest - United States. One could almost make the case that strong economic ties make war MORE likely rather than less. Much depends upon the attitude of the trading states. If one or both (or all) of them decide that it is easier to simply TAKE rather than TRADE - as Japan did in China, and Germany in Russia - it becomes more likely that they will initiate a war. The converse of this is that the nations which prefer 'trade' to 'take' - historically, the United States position - are the LEAST likely to initiate wars of aggression. Until 2003, that is. Which brings us back to the neocon position of 'using the US military to further America's economic interests' - that is creeping this country closer to the 'take' mode and away from the traditonal American 'trade' mode. i understand where you are coming from, but i have a healthy fear of other countries over-running completely dis-armed isolationists, remember China and Britain way-back-when... how would you factor in the military then???

blessedinnyc -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan We have extremely strong economic ties to the other powerful nations in the world, ties that make war between wealthy nations extremely unlikely. The history of the three biggest wars of the past 150 years would say otherwise: American Civil War - the South's largest trading partner, the North. The North's largest trading partner - the South. First World War - Germany's largest trading partner - France. Second - Russia. Second World War - ditto, plus Japan's largest trading partner - China, and second largest - United States. One could almost make the case that strong economic ties make war MORE likely rather than less. Much depends upon the attitude of the trading states. If one or both (or all) of them decide that it is easier to simply TAKE rather than TRADE - as Japan did in China, and Germany in Russia - it becomes more likely that they will initiate a war. The converse of this is that the nations which prefer 'trade' to 'take' - historically, the United States position - are the LEAST likely to initiate wars of aggression. Until 2003, that is. Which brings us back to the neocon position of 'using the US military to further America's economic interests' - that is creeping this country closer to the 'take' mode and away from the traditonal American 'trade' mode. And here's the irony- the best way to avoid a war is to have a large and powerful military that does absolutely nothing, but just ensures that any attempted invasion would be extremely painful.

blessedinnyc -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:44:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant quote: ORIGINAL: todd_t quote: the use of the word "neocon" virtually guarantees that nobody will ever take any of your positions that seriously.... Are you suggesting the neo-con philosphy does not pervade the current administration? Or that it's a myth entirely? 'Neoconservatism' is the elephant in the GOP's room, which the Republican Party is doing its very best to pretend isn't there. Neoconservatism is the notion that we should have a small military that does everything. It's the exact opposite of the ideology that kept us relatively peaceful during the Cold War.

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 10:49:40 AM)
"how would you factor in the military then??? " In the original 'big stick' scenario (): a military so obviously powerful that no one else would dare mess with us - militarily. In economics, the same should also be true. We ought to be producing the world's best products at competitive if not superior prices. We have the technology, the systems, the educated populace, the raw resources to do it, only the MBAs who run American business find it cheaper THIS QUARTER to buy cheap, low-quality, for God's sake POISONED, stuff from China. And no, I don't know how we get back to EITHER paradigm - we are too far down the path laid out for us by the neocons in their 'project for a new american century' that there is no way back. () Not surprisingly, "The Big Stick" is the motto of the USS Theodore Rossevelt, CVN 71. (For the record, "Shall not perish" is the official motto of the USS Lincoln, CVN 72, from the Ghettysburg Address. <The UNofficial motto, "Get Over it", resulted from the six-month deployment extension in 2003 when Bush launched his war of choice in Iraq.>)

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 11:00:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc Neoconservatism is the notion that we should have a small military that does everything. It's the exact opposite of the ideology that kept us relatively peaceful during the Cold War. The neoconservatives speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. They SAY that they favor reduced defense spending. They ALSO say that the American military must be strong enough to promote nation building, create democratic governments, and impose American will throughout the world. In practice, they have followed the latter, and found that the till is not full enough to carry out their intentions. So, a question of history. What happens when a nation sets out to impose its will - militarily, economically, politically - upon its neighbors, let alone as we have started to do, on the entire world, and then finds out that it lacks the wherewithal to carry out the intent?

huskarine -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 11:19:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant quote: ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc Neoconservatism is the notion that we should have a small military that does everything. It's the exact opposite of the ideology that kept us relatively peaceful during the Cold War. The neoconservatives speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. They SAY that they favor reduced defense spending. They ALSO say that the American military must be strong enough to promote nation building, create democratic governments, and impose American will throughout the world. In practice, they have followed the latter, and found that the till is not full enough to carry out their intentions. So, a question of history. What happens when a nation sets out to impose its will - militarily, economically, politically - upon its neighbors, let alone as we have started to do, on the entire world, and then finds out that it lacks the wherewithal to carry out the intent? you sure post a lot, what do you do for a living??? same could be said about myself...i am an adjudicator in between cases...

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Troops Deployed Abroad Give more money to Obama (8/15/2008 11:24:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine you sure post a lot, what do you do for a living??? You sure ask a lot of personal questions.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI