DANGEROUS bill requiring all citizens 18-42yrs old to perform 'National Service'

[Tock]

From the GAO website:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05952.pdf
(look at page 130)

About all they can do is estimate the socioeconomic status of war casualties, by matching up the home zipcode of the dead veteran to economic data of each zip code.

From their 2005 report, % of deaths (as of May 2005) go like this:

Rich - 13%
Middle class - 58%
Poor - 29%

The DOD statisticians caution, however:

Because of the previously discussed limitations with using zip codes and
community-based characteristics to estimate individuals’ actual
socioeconomic status, these findings (and later similar findings on

wounded servicemembers) need to be viewed with caution.

We all know about the reliability of statistics . . .

------------------------

There is something to be said for Republican "Chickenhawks" who enthusiastically support the war, but are loathe to personally participate in it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnvVEDWgb98&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RjQuJDjZar8&feature=related <-- prefer fighting the "culture wars" instead
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OTZ4gaUo_xw&feature=related <-- Bill Maher's take

Me, I've already done my time in the USAF. If they really want me, sure, I'll go. But they probably won't, because I'm gay. And I don't mind either "asking or telling."

[Logan13]

There is something to be said for Republican "Chickenhawks" who enthusiastically support the war, but are loathe to personally participate in it.

There is more to be said for those who spread false statements to further their politics. Your argument relies on Republicans being the party of the rich....

Dean's World
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000055.html
The most amusing these days is the notion that certain diehard Democrats continue to peddle: namely, that the Republicans are the "party of the rich" whereas the Democratic Party is the party of the "little guy." Leaving aside the astounding condescension inherent in referring to anyone as "the little guy," what these folks seem to have missed is that, increasingly, it is they who are the party of the rich...

The poorest regions of the United States by and large trend Republican. That trend's been growing over the last few decades. This reached its most obvious zenith (so far) in the closely-divided election of 2000. Despite all the class-warfare rhetoric used by the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, he mostly won his very slim popular margin by winning three types of voter: affluent urbanites, affluent New Englanders, and black people. Bush, on the other hand, built his electoral victory on a much broader and more inclusive campaign that did not seek to divide people by race or class, and won voters in much larger and more diverse regions of the country--the poorer regions especially.

"Republicans emphasize the role of corporate and personal decision making in fostering economic prosperity. They support the idea of individuals being economically responsible for their own actions and decisions."

"Once dominated by unionized labor and the working class, the Democratic base now consists of social liberals who tend to be well-educated with above-average incomes as well as the socially more conservative working class." -wikipedia

[Tock]

There is more to be said for those who spread false statements to further their politics. Your argument relies on Republicans being the party of the rich....

No, not so much as the Republicans being the party of the rich, as much as it's the rich people who declare stupid needless wars that benefit rich multi-national corporations (like the oil companies), and rich people who evidently don't send their children into war.

Ya, rich kids don't have to go to war, unless they get into the officer corps, where they can send enlisted (and less wealthy) guys into harm's way.

-------------------

Anyway, did Congressman Rangel recently re-new his intention on getting a draft bill passed?

[Logan13]

No, not so much as the Republicans being the party of the rich, as much as it's the rich people who declare stupid needless wars that benefit rich multi-national corporations (like the oil companies), and rich people who evidently don't send their children into war.

Ya, rich kids don't have to go to war, unless they get into the officer corps, where they can send enlisted (and less wealthy) guys into harm's way.

This is your statement:
"There is something to be said for Republican "Chickenhawks""
So which is it?-------------------

Anyway, did Congressman Rangel recently re-new his intention on getting a draft bill passed?

Most likely....

[Tock]

There is more to be said for those who spread false statements to further their politics. Your argument relies on Republicans being the party of the rich....


The poorest regions of the United States by and large trend Republican. That trend's been growing over the last few decades.

Republicans have relied an awful lot on folks like this, too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JARF7q2S6ns

Call this lady what you will, but the tragedy for all the rest of us is
that she has a vote, just like the rest of us. And it's not like she's
the only one like this -- I see 'em all the time here in Texas and Oklahoma.

[RANA]

Republicans have relied an awful lot on folks like this, too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JARF7q2S6ns

Call this lady what you will, but the tragedy for all the rest of us is
that she has a vote, just like the rest of us. And it's not like she's
the only one like this -- I see 'em all the time here in Texas and Oklahoma.

The same can be said about Democratics. They say that they are helping minorities, whatever. All they do is lie to them to get a vote. That is the problem with numerous minority groups they listen to all the MSM crap about how oppressed they are. It's about "feel sorry for me" and see what the gov't can give me.

[Logan13]

The same can be said about Democratics. They say that they are helping minorities, whatever. All they do is lie to them to get a vote. That is the problem with numerous minority groups they listen to all the MSM crap about how oppressed they are. It's about "feel sorry for me" and see what the gov't can give me.

Dems want to create an actual welfare state, much like the New Deal........
Instead of the pursuit of happiness, liberals want to stop pursuing and have the gov't give it to them.

[meathead320]

From the GAO website:


From their 2005 report, % of deaths (as of May 2005) go like this:

Rich - 13%
Middle class - 58%
Poor - 29%

Those numbers could actually mean that a higher % of rich kids actually join, and serve on the front lines.

If you consider "Rich" being the top 1% income class, then if 13% of the deaths would be from people that belong to only 1%, where the middle class, and poor actually are a much higher % of total US population.

I served in Iraq, 2004-2005. I come from a family that would be right in-between rich/middle.

I did not join to pay for school either, or any other reason than I felt it was the right thing to do.

I would NEVER support mandatory service, for anything short of a draft based on an extreme emergency situation. IE: China invades USA.

[goodcents]

If china invades, we are pretty well fuked anyway They are getting a jump on us in "real" weapons (ground attack, etc.)

[RANA]

If china invades, we are pretty well fuked anyway They are getting a jump on us in "real" weapons (ground attack, etc.)

China had a rude awaking after we invade Iraq. Most of the technology that China has is from the Russia same as the Iraqis. After we destroyed the Iraq military in a matter of weeks China realized that they need to invest in better technology.

[goodcents]

China has better and more land weapons than we do, we just have better air power and nuclear weapons. There service r***es are alot better than our .223" varmint r***es our abrams tank is alot better but we only have so many of them They have # advantage. Our population is old.

[goodcents]

Our politicians would sell us out anyway Just like on red dawn, they would round us up and shoot us and throw us in a ditch

Right before they shot me I would be like, "I told you so"

[Tock]

Another interesting statistic I'd like to see is:

what % of politicians who supported the war
1) have children in the military
2) had kids who were wounded or killed in the war

I'd like to see those statistics done by political party, and combined.
Ya, that would be interesting . . . to see if those war-hawks are as happy to send their own kids into war as they are to send someone else's . . .

----------
How about the current candidates for President? Who, amongst them, have military-age kids in/out of the military?


Democrats

1) Hillary Clinton -- her daughter isn't. She's working in for a hedge fund (somewhere).
2) Obama -- kids too young
3) John Edwards -- ? opposes the war, anyway
4)

Republicans
1) John McCain -- ?
2) Huckabee -- ?
3) Ron Paul -- ? opposes the war
4) the Mormon guy -- supports the war, has military age kids, none of 'em in the military
5) Giuliani -- ?
6)

[Logan13]

Another interesting statistic I'd like to see is:

what % of politicians who supported the war
1) have children in the military
2) had kids who were wounded or killed in the war

I'd like to see those statistics done by political party, and combined.
Ya, that would be interesting . . . to see if those war-hawks are as happy to send their own kids into war as they are to send someone else's . . .

----------

Those stats would not reveal much. I would like to see the stats on what % of politicians who have family in the military voted against the war.