|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Aug 2nd, 2005 05:10 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
I however think (and I'm certainly not being original here, since there is a political science school of thought here) you can argue that voters make very rational decisions, in their turnout, in who they vote for, etc. People often vote for the guy they find least offensive, mainly because they have no time for government. Some might argue that that's perfectly rational, too. Quote:
I don't care if you dislike Bush, Davin. I didn't vote for the man either. I just think that what you perceive to be a more "wordly perspective" is actually just a lot of your own subjective opinion. |
|||
| Jul 30th, 2005 01:15 PM | ||||
| kellychaos |
Are we to assume that the choice of nominees are based on some kind of merit system? 
|
|||
| Jul 30th, 2005 06:05 AM | ||||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 30th, 2005 04:35 AM | ||||
| davinxtk |
Yes, I do believe that people vote for the wrong reasons these days. That doesn't mean that I think people would or should all vote the same way -- but if you ask me, they should all at least vote, armed with real information. And yes, if you want to make a specific example of that, you could use George W. Bush. You got me, Kevin, I don't think Americans made the right choice, nor did they make it for the right reasons. Imagine that. My point was more that if people really knew what was going on in the country and the world, both Kerry and Bush would have been laughed off the fucking ballots. |
|||
| Jul 29th, 2005 12:45 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Right, but the implication was that people were lacking that world perspective now, meaning that the way they vote now is wrong, i.e. for Bush. No? | |||
| Jul 29th, 2005 12:46 AM | ||||
| davinxtk |
Where was that part of my argument? I said that they'd have more real-world experience and understand the issues that this country and this world should be concerned with better than they do now, not that they'd all be commies. |
|||
| Jul 27th, 2005 10:36 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I'm not trying to imply that service men and women have it better under a Republican, I'm just stating avery general fact (and I have friends/family to verify that perspective, too  ).Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 27th, 2005 08:52 PM | ||||
| ziggytrix |
Re: Voting And they seem to love to cut veterans' benefits too! I was primarily quoting a then 27 year old airman who'd just got back from the 'sandbox' during the 04 elections, so I'm talking about at least one current, active military folk, and I'm pretty sure he was just repeating something he heard a thousand times, since he went on to say he was voting for Kerry. *shrug* |
|||
| Jul 27th, 2005 07:39 PM | ||||
| GAsux |
Voting For the record, while statistically I suppose you might be able to demonstrate that military members generally vote Republican, I believe the divide is far smaller than you think. Again, I can't back it with numbers, just my experience. Additionally, while perhaps during the Reagan era the "republican President=better pay and benefits for the military" theory might have rung true. I don't find so many active military folks stating that anymore. The only people you hear that from are the older retiree types. In fact, statistically, some of the biggest pay/benefit increases in 20+ years came under the Clinton Presidency. I believe in spite of the rhetoric you'll find that the current Republican administration has been far less military friendly than it would seem on the surface. |
|||
| Jul 27th, 2005 05:32 PM | ||||
| kellychaos |
Re: Affluent families.... Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 27th, 2005 12:49 PM | ||||
| davinxtk |
Quote:
I'm apparently going to have to remind you that I'm not just talking military service, either. If America were to conscript every 18 year old who wasn't in school for even just a single year of service we would have more man-power than we'd know what to do with. We'd have the numbers it would take to control a hotbed like Iraq with our eyes closed, and without a back-door draft. We'd have the numbers to send real aid to places like Rwanda. The Army Corps of Engineers would be massive, not some dinky 35,000-member troupe. And when those who were in school finished -- like Helm said -- we'd have a volume of educated individuals getting real-life experience working for the government before entering the workforce. This is without mentioning those who are already part of our all-volunteer army, career military or not, and the amount of people exposed to this sort of thing who would opt to continue their service. I honestly don't see much of a downside to this, except someone might claim that it's the government trying to control its citizens. Our title as "land of the free" might be in slight jeopardy if we all actually have to do something for our nation to live here. And before you mention it: no, paying taxes doesn't count for shit compared to the life that many of our citizens have chosen. |
|||
| Jul 27th, 2005 12:01 PM | ||||
| Emu | There was an interesting post on a Google newsgroup a while back where someone said that the reason Republicans outnumber Democrats in the military is the same reason liberals outnumber conservatives in academia. I'll try to dig it up again. | |||
| Jul 27th, 2005 10:41 AM | ||||
| ziggytrix | Military votes Republican because - and this is almost a direct quote from military friends/family - "it's voting for a pay raise". | |||
| Jul 26th, 2005 11:26 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 26th, 2005 04:10 PM | ||||
| davinxtk |
Kevin, it doesn't have anything to do with Democrats or Republicans. You're jumping to the partisan line too quickly. What I'm saying is that they'd vote on real issues and real problems, not the ones that the media kicks up to obstruct our view of the nation's real concerns and problems. I don't like the Democrats or the Republicans particularly, neither party rests enough control in its people. And you're right, there were two seperate arguments there, but both are valid. If everyone in the country served in a civil or military capacity at some point in their lives, it would give them a damn good reason to want to control what the government was doing. The life experience would also put them more in touch with the reality of the nation. And GA, I'm definitely not the right person to try and get class-based character judgements out of. If I had my way I'd have a newish reliable car, a decent sized home of my own and food for my family. So would you, and everyone else in the country. I'm not into this disparity, I don't believe that people should be in such different economic standing, provided they work. Of course different work deserves different and sometimes greater rewards, but this capitalist economy has gotten entirely out of control. It bugs the living shit out of me that one of my mom's clients owns three houses, right on the beach, two of which he only uses for three months out of the year and then lets sit while he lives in his mansion in Connecticut and yet my mother received a foreclosure notice in the mail because she can't afford to maintain our vehicles, our car insurance, our telephones, internet, and mortgage payments, even with myself and two of my friends helping her out by paying rent. Her client is actually a very nice man who helped us out of another sticky situation three years ago by loaning my mother money (which she paid back in full). He doesn't, however, work. He got to the top of a computer company and sold it in late 2000, right before the economy shit the bed. He hasn't worked since, and he's bought, remodeled, and/or refinished four houses since then. He has money becuase he was in the right position at the right time, not be cause he works. I don't necessarily begrudge him this as much as I do the system which allowed for it all to happen. |
|||
| Jul 26th, 2005 01:00 PM | ||||
| ziggytrix |
You're talking about jealousy. If I had enough money to buy a Hummer - I'd usue it to pay off my mortgage. |
|||
| Jul 26th, 2005 12:33 PM | ||||
| GAsux |
Just out of curiosity... I know this is a bit off topic with regards to civic duty and some kind of mandatory service program (which I support by the way, just not in a military capacity), but at what point does a person cross into becoming a "yuppie"? I suppose I'm guilty of it to as I make a lower middle class wage and live in a predominantly affluent, upper middle class neighborhood. I get a little touchy when I see "yuppies" driving around town in their Beamers and H2s towing their fancy ski boats, etc. But at what point do those people transition from becoming "successful" to being dreaded "yuppies"? My only point here is that I'm not convinced that having money or being successful is necessarily cause to slander a person. Isn't that what we're all working towards anyway? To improve our financial situation? If I could afford an H2 and a nice boat, to be honest I would. Not becuase I'm a dirty yuppie, but because I'd love to have one to drive and like boating. It's sort of like how when a band you love starts to gain popularity and suddenly becomes a "sell out" because their music became popular. Again, my apologies for derailing the train of thought here, just seems interesting to me how we as a society seem to resent people with money until we become those people ourselves. |
|||
| Jul 26th, 2005 01:54 AM | ||||
| ziggytrix |
hell it might even get a 3rd party candidtate in the white house if the other 50% of the nation voted. who knows! edit: heh, who the fuck do i think i'm kidding 
|
|||
| Jul 26th, 2005 12:11 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
But you changed it to "vote a little more sensibly," rather than simply voting. If voting "sensibly" means not voting for Republicans, then I think you're missing the boat on this argument. :/ Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 25th, 2005 10:51 PM | ||||
| davinxtk |
My mom (note: not my parents) has the three kids, the mortgage, can't afford the doctor's visits (I personally haven't had as much as a physical since I was 12, which was free from the public school system at the time -- we make too much money for MassHealth and not enough for real health insurance) and barely keeps her own company afloat in a seasonal economy. I was the kid in school who wore the same clothes every day because mommy couldn't afford any more. The kid who got made fun of because he was on the laminated lunch ticket. I know very well how hard people work in this country, but that doesn't give them any excuse to be completely apathetic and ignorant to the world. Besides, those aren't even the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fucking yuppies with their summer homes and 72" plasma screen televisions on hydraulic lifts with stressed mahogany chests built around them (and yes, i've seen and operated such a device in more than one summer home). The people my mother is essentially a slave to to keep my sisters fed and clothed. The people who need to understand what the middle and lower classes in this country go through, because maybe then they'd vote a little more sensibly -- not for the president who gives their bracket the biggest tax cut and hates the homos. I think compulsory military (or civil) service would do a whole lot of good for America. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But take a good look at where that opinion has gotten us thus far. |
|||
| Jul 25th, 2005 07:19 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I think you get into dangerous territory when you use voting stats (which were actually up in 2004) to rate civic involvement. "Americans don't have enough to answer to in today's world and it would probably do our population a shitload of good to look itself and the rest of the world in the eye, look past their SUVs, neatly trimmed lawns, high-paying office jobs, or better yet, their slums, drugs, and grunt work, and grow the fuck up a bit." I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't personally have the SUV, trimmed lawn, and the job.....wait, let's word that more appropriately: The three kids, the mortgage, the doctors visits, all the other bills, the mid-level job that probably doesn't pay you what your worth, etc. People work very hard in this country, and they do so with the hope of having the family, raising the kids, and living the so-called American Dream. I don't think it's that people are voluntarily disconnected, I think it's often all they can do just to get by and stay up to pace. |
|||
| Jul 25th, 2005 03:03 PM | ||||
| davinxtk |
Quote:
Compulsory service would force people to realize that there's life out there beyond their closed-minded little world. Edit: Kevin, that article runs paralell to my argument. |
|||
| Jul 24th, 2005 08:28 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Not entirely related, but still in line with the conversation. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/po...gewanted=print July 24, 2005 All Quiet on the Home Front, and Some Soldiers Are Asking Why By THOM SHANKER WASHINGTON, July 23 - The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war. From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large? There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions. There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past. "Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology. Members of the military who discussed their sense of frustration did so only when promised anonymity, as comments viewed as critical of the civilian leadership could end their careers. The sentiments were expressed in more than two dozen interviews and casual conversations with enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, midlevel officers, and general or flag officers in Iraq and in the United States. Charles Moskos, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University specializing in military sociology, said: "My terminology for it is 'patriotism lite,' and that's what we're experiencing now in both political parties. The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry." Senior administration officials say they are aware of the tension and have opened discussions on whether to mobilize brigades of Americans beyond those already signed up for active duty or in the Reserves and National Guard. At the Pentagon and the State Department, officials have held preliminary talks on creating a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. In an interview, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said that discussions had begun on a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military. When President Bush last addressed the issue of nationwide support for the war effort in a formal speech, he asked Americans to use the Fourth of July as a time to "find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street." In the speech, at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, Mr. Bush mentioned a Defense Department Web site, Americasupportsyou.mil, where people can learn about private-sector efforts to bolster the morale of the troops. He also urged those considering a career in the military to enlist because "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces." While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel. "For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early." David C. Hendrickson, a scholar on foreign policy and the presidency at Colorado College, said, "Bush understands that the support of the public for war - especially the war in Iraq - is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Mr. Hendrickson said that after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just as after the recent London bombings, political leaders urged the population to continue life as normal, so as not to give terrorists a moral victory by giving in to the fear of violence. But he said the stress of the commitment to the continuing mission in Iraq was viewed by the public in a different light than a terrorist attack on home soil. "The public wants very much to support the troops" in Iraq, he said. "But it doesn't really believe in the mission. Most consider it a war of choice, and a majority - although a thin one - thinks it was the wrong choice." Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., who served as commandant of the Army War College and is now retired, said: "Despite the enormous impact of Sept. 11, it hasn't really translated into a national movement towards fighting the war on terrorism. It's almost as if the politicians want to be able to declare war and, at the same time, maintain a sense of normalcy." General Scales said he had heard a heavy stream of concerns from current officers that "the military is increasingly isolated from the rest of the country." "People associate being an officer with the priesthood," he added. "You know, there is an enormous amount of respect, but nobody wants to sign up for celibacy." Private organizations like the Navy League of the United States that support the individual armed services have identified the tension and are using this theme to urge greater contributions from members now in the civilian world. "We have recognized that and we have tried to sound the alarm," said Rear Adm. Stephen R. Pietropaoli, retired, the executive director of the Navy League. "As an organization that is committed to supporting them by ensuring they have the weapons and tools and systems to fight and win, and also at the grass-roots level by providing assistance to families," Admiral Pietropaoli said, "we are aware that the burden has fallen almost solely on the shoulders of the uniformed military and security services and their families. We have used that in our calls to action by our members. We have said: 'We are at war. What have you done lately?' " Morten G. Ender, who teaches sociology at West Point, has been interviewing soldiers, their spouses and cadets since the Iraq war started in 2003. Because the all-volunteer military is a self-selecting body and by definition is not drawn from a cross-section of America, he said, those with direct involvement constitute a far smaller percentage of the country than in past wars. Mr. Ender said that the "rhetoric from the top" of the civilian leadership of the United States "doesn't move people towards actions." Most Americans support the military, he said, and "feel like there is somebody out there taking care of the job." "They say, 'I'm going to support those people, I believe in those people and God bless those people,' " he said. "By doing that, they can wash their hands of it." |
|||
| Jul 23rd, 2005 02:05 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Anyway, regarding the infrastructure for national service, well it's already there. Like I said, AmeriCorps is already set up, as is the PeaceCorps and TFA. I served for a year with AmeriCorps, and I loved it. I learned a lot in that year. The problem with AmeriCorps is that it is constantly under attack from the anti-govt. crowd. Sometimes with good reason, because some AmeriCorps programs are quite worthless. But usually they just hate it b/c "you shouldn't get paid to volunteer." And Clinton created it, so there ya go. There was a good book on the passage of the National Service Act called "The Bill." So anyway, the ground work is potentially there, if we were so inclined. |
|||
| Jul 6th, 2005 03:36 PM | ||||
| ziggytrix |
Fuck you, asshole. Ha ha just kidding. See how the second sentence references the first one to expand on the sentiment that you are a jerk? And how I started a new paragraph to convey a sperate thought? Does that blow your mind or what? My point is that regardless whether they target lower class or middle class, it won't be upper class fighting the wars, even though it will be upper class starting the wars. Except in a draft scenario, the rich kids gotta go fight, too. Do you still think I'm "missing the point"? I still think you're an asshole. 
|
|||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||
