Originally posted by CliffLandinSee? That's data. Thank you Cliff.
The Republicans take the Senate - at least in the "served in the Military" department
Republicans
Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN) - no
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO) - no
Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT) - a chaplain in the Army National Guard from 1957 to 1969
Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO) - no
Brownback, Sam- (R - KS) - no
Bunning, Jim- (R - KY) - no
Burr, ...[text shortened]... n war: 5
Independent
Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID - CT) - no
Sanders, Bernard- (I - VT) - no
1 edit
Originally posted by Hank ReardenNow really if it were a republican post you would be shredding like an Erron executive.
I'm actually surprised Thousand young that you would support such a stupid post.
If you would actually lok at the list, I'd say roughly 75 names are on the list. And of the names on said list are people who are no longer in these political offices. I mean really you can't get more bias than this list. Now really if it were a republican post you e military sevice I will try to find one for us because I am just as interested as you.
Maybe, but only if I could demonstrate bias by providing my own data.
You seem to forget a point that you usually fight to try and make. Many of these people from "both" sides have rich mommys and daddys who gave them a silver spoon, and had very powerful friends.
When did I ever try to make that point? Not that it's not true; I just can't think of a single time I've ever argued that position.
Originally posted by Turtlestackdid the senate intelligence committee say bush lied?
You can't convince the American people to go to war because you want to control the middle east. Nobody would support that and we'd toss out the President for even saying it. You need a better reason than imperialism to go to war these days. WMD's was perfect because after 9-11 everyone was scared to death. WMD's allowed Bush to implement his plan to move into the middle east.
Originally posted by MerkIt would make perfect sense that military types would vote for a bunch of chicken hawks that they could bully. Wanna be generals who are only to complicit in rolling over the public purse in favor of military spending, instead of spending the people's money on social programs and diplomacy that might alleviate the need to always have to rule with a big stick.
This list of course tries to make the donks have more veterans claim without mentioning the well known fact that the majority of military personnel vote Republican.
1 edit
Originally posted by Merkthe iraq war/occupation seems a lot of trouble to have gone to just to get on the east side of a country that's not landlocked.
I agree with you on Iraq. It was about shaping the middle east. We can't do that from here. By removing the Taliban and Saddam, we removed Irans two biggest enemies, but we put ourselves on their east and west. And yes, Iran is a threat to the middle east also. Even the Saudis realize it and now that Iran is making more noise, the house of Saud is standing up a ards to Iran. Iran is their enemy, they would be happy to see the radical Shia out of power.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthe data is obviously slanted.
When you only have one set of data to work with, then that's what you have to work with. There are people on both sides with agendas yet I only see one list. Why is that? Are the Republicans just lazy or was the original poster right?
they left out COLIN POWELL.
why bother to find any more examples, after that?
Originally posted by kmax87why do leading Democrats in D.C. have such a hard time finding good public schools there, and wind up putting their kids in private school?
It would make perfect sense that military types would vote for a bunch of chicken hawks that they could bully. Wanna be generals who are only to complicit in rolling over the public purse in favor of military spending, instead of spending the people's money on social programs and diplomacy that might alleviate the need to always have to rule with a big stick.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt does not matter if he did or did not. If Bush walked up to you and said "I want to invade Iraq because I believe I can control the middle east better that way." would you say "Sure, go for it?"
did the senate intelligence committee say bush lied?
Most people would say no to that. Most soverign nations around the globe woul say "Hell No!" and we'd have no support of our allies (which we did need at the time of the invasion).
Did Bush lie? I don't know because I don't know him and I wasn't a fly on the wall. Maybe he did and fabricated the story well enough to cover himself. Maybe he didn't because he was being used by the military. It does not matter anymore because nothing will ever be "proven".
What I do know is that we are in a very good position right now to stake a claim in the heart of the middle east (the cradle of civilization to boot) and impose our will at will. Of course we need to win the war and all that depends on you and me and the crooks in Washington working together.
Originally posted by Turtlestackit does, because a lot of people are saying that without any better evidence than something on the order of "i saw arrakis post it in another thread." but i thought i saw you yourself post just today something like "hell, maybe they did have wmd's", after posting "bush lied".
It does not matter if he did or did not. If Bush walked up to you and said "I want to invade Iraq because I believe I can control the middle east better that way." would you say "Sure, go for it?"
Most people would say no to that. Most soverign nations around the globe woul say "Hell No!" and we'd have no support of our allies (which we did need at ...[text shortened]... r and all that depends on you and me and the crooks in Washington working together.
has anyone come up with a shred of evidence that anything other than the stated objectives were at play? evidence with a final source not rooted in moveon.org, the democratic national committee, or a european bullpen?
Originally posted by uzlessFirst list:
Ever wonder why US Republicans send the troops to war so easily yet Democrats are more cautious? Judge for yourself.
Democrats
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent toVietnamJan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Eng ...[text shortened]... Star for Valor inVietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve
19/31 Democrats
11/39 Republicans
+1/1 Republican for Colin Powell
Second list:
10/49 Democrats
16/49 Republicans
So, our stats now are:
29/80 Democrats
28/89 Republicans