Soldiers Are Not Heroes

[DumbAss Tanker]

And yet it's liberals who keep pushing for a draft, so that the military will be more representative of the population and so more Americans will have a stake in how the military is used, and force politicians to make decisions that progressives and liberals consider to be more in keeping with national defense rather than national aggression.

If you think that's really the reason the advocates of it want one, you're an even bigger dope than most of us think you are already. There are two primary reasons the Democrats ever bring up a draft, the first being to destabilize any Republican President (How much enthusiasm have Congressional Democrats had for conscription since Obama took office, versus under Bush?), and to a lesser degree, to enable more of their shiftless constituents to get a piece of the veterans' entitlements pie without having to take the dreaded personal responsibility for enlisting.

There are one or two, like Rangel, who in a different age were drafted and served, and actually do believe in the principle you describe (In addition to the low-life motives above, of course), however they are living in the past. The current maximum authorized size of the Army is smaller than in-theater troop strength at the peak of the Viet Nam War, and a mere shadow of the size it was when Rangel served, with far more restrictions on handling problem soldiers than in his day, including of course Congressmen like himself looking over every leader's shoulder and a press with no understanding of the military always hungry for a chance to play the iconoclast. For the size of force that Congress wants to authorize, and what they expect it to be able to do within those means, a draft would render the Army an undeployable babysitting and career-retraining service, useless in any military sense.

[Hawkgirl]

No, you're just vulgar.

What's the matter Betsy, you want to dish it out, but you don't want to take it? Typical fancy pants liberal elitist fairy.

[txradioguy]

According to me, I am objective and don't take positions based on my self perception as a member of a party or a group, rather based in reason on each topic. I am a registered Democrat.

In reality what you are...is an agenda driven ideologically indoctrinated Socialist Liberal. With a thin grasp of what would pass as facts and an over inflated sense of your own intelligence and self worth.

Neither reason or logic enter into any of what you claim to believe in (assuming that Liberals really do have core beliefs) merely you drift towards what the party tells you is the current flavor of politically correct Socialist clap trap and repeat what you're told to believe like a lip synching member of Milli Vanilli.

[Novaheart]

In reality what you are...is an agenda driven ideologically indoctrinated Socialist Liberal.

The only agenda I have is to do what makes sense.
Single Payer healthcare makes sense.
School vouchers make sense.
"Shall not be infringed" not only makes sense, it's in the Constitution.
Religion doesn't make sense and no one owes it or its believers anything.
Illegal immigration is an economic, social, and environment disaster in the making. Amnesty does not make sense.
Mass immigration is neither needed nor beneficial at this point, it's not 1870 and it does not make sense.
Discrimination by the government doesn't make sense.
Private employers should be allowed to discriminate- as long as they do it openly and put it on their door and their signs.

[Odysseus]

That certainly settles it.

I did preface it with the comment about pulling a Pauline Kael. Obviously, I didn't expect that to settle it, but I do see anecdotal evidence all of the time, not to mention a serious dearth of Obama bumper stickers on active posts.

But seriously, as you noted and as I am given to respond to most polls: the methodology is rarely presented and we really have no sound basis for assessment. I realize that it would be asking too much for these polls and publishers to do this, but rather than a "40% are this and 30% are that" summary, I would like to see the actual questions and response statistics and then I will decide what they mean.

I'm a perfect example. Over at Democratic Underground I was regarded as a racist, islamphobic, possibly not even gay, conservative fascists self hating Republican in Democratic drag. At Free Republic, pretty much the same only reversed. In both of those places there is tremendous pressure to conform or be shunned. According to Family Guy, I'm a contrarian. According to me, I am objective and don't take positions based on my self perception as a member of a party or a group, rather based in reason on each topic. I am a registered Democrat. That doesn't mean that I love Obama or hate Reagan. Both Reagan and Obama did considerable damage to this country. Finding someone who won't do that appears to be impossible- but I know this, it isn't Romney.

Actually, most pollsters do present their methodology, unless the polls are proprietary (for a specific campaign, for example) or the pollster is trying to hide something, like a biased sample, or a jaundiced interpretation of the data. Rassmussen and Gallup make it a point to post their methodology on their websites, which are linked to the releases of the polls. In the case of the military, an 1,800 person sample that doesn't tell us how many were enlisted or commissioned, or how many years the member had in service, or the racial and gender breakdown of the poll doesn't tell us much. Infantry and armor troops and officers tend to be more conservative than Staff Judge Advocates or Medical Service personnel. Was the shift a reflection of force reductions in the Brigade Combat Teams? If so, then there are other, far more serious implications than a simple political shift (lawyers and infantry can both do tremendous damage to a nation, but they aren't interchangeable on the battlefield). Was there a shift to the Democrats, or a shift away from them, as well? Without using the previous survey as a control, the data becomes simply whatever the media wants it to be.

Again, there are so many variables in any poll, and the military provides unique variables in this one, that failing to provide the raw data makes it impossible to cite this poll as anything but noise.

[txradioguy]

The only agenda I have is to do what makes sense.

Single Payer healthcare makes sense.

Why?

"Shall not be infringed" not only makes sense, it's in the Constitution.

And yet you actively and openly trounce demean and would like nothing better than to see the Christian religion wiped off the face of the earth.

How do you balance one against the other? Muse be that "makes sense" thing.

Religion doesn't make sense and no one owes it or its believers anything.

And yet you say you believe in:

Shall not be infringed

That applies to freedom of religious practices as well.

Discrimination by the government doesn't make sense.

Except for affirmative action and all of the straight people you'd have the government discriminate against in the name of Gay Rights.

Private employers should be allowed to discriminate- as long as they do it openly and put it on their door and their signs.

Except when it comes to hanging a sign that says "gays need not apply" right?

[Rockntractor]

The only agenda I have is to do what makes sense.

[Novaheart]

Why?

I"ve already explained it too many times, if you don't get it then do a search and read the explanation I have posted.

How do you balance one against the other?

I don't have to balance one against the other. I expressed my opinion of religion, not freedom of religion or any other part of the First Amendment. You have a right to freedom of religion, your belief in a mythological god who watches over you is entirely your concern. Not that that satisfies some people who want the courthouses and the schools to embrace religion- the government may not embrace religion. It should be indifferent to religion but on guard when religion tries to insert itself into government. You have a right to belong to a Baptist church, identify yourself as a Baptist, and go to church on Sunday without government interference. Any other aspect is probably covered by freedom of speech or the tax code. Was there something else you wanted?

[Novaheart]

Except for affirmative action and all of the straight people you'd have the government discriminate against in the name of Gay Rights.

I have never advocated affirmative action nor have I said that the government can or should discriminate against straight people in the name of gay rights. I think you are confused about what discrimination means.

[txradioguy]

I have never advocated affirmative action nor have I said that the government can or should discriminate against straight people in the name of gay rights. I think you are confused about what discrimination means.

No you just advocate for the Government to shove lifestyles and beliefs a small percentage of people (anti-religion/gay rights) down the throats of the majority of people that don't support it.

Different side of the same coin. I'm not confused about what discrimination is. I'm a straight white male with 6 kids who believes in God and His son Jesus Christ. I'm the enemy number one of Libtards like you.