More Republican Party In-Fighting: Hastert Lectures McCain on Sacrifice, War

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

154 members of congress with service.

119 in the house
71 Republicans
48 Democrats

35 in the senate
19 Republicans
16 Democrats.

There you have it. Now if we can match up their voting record on Iraq, we can find out which party has more Chickenhawks. I'm guessing statistically where it would end up...

This is "fuzzy" statistics. These numbers do not speak to the number of chickenhawks. To do that, you would have to count the number of Republicans who didn't serve and act like they have served (or whatever your definition of chickenhawk is) to the number of Democrats who act like they served but didn't.

Another interesting point that your numbers miss is that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress! To really show that Republicans serve more, you need to take percentages. It is likely that Republicans do serve more, but your numbers --out of context-- do not show that. And your numbers certainly do not speak to the proportion of chickenhaws in either party.

I suggest you take a community college course on statistics or visit your local library.

Well, infoschmuck, I suggest you STFU since you didn't even bother to do the math.

1) We're going to have a hard time applying the term "chickenhawk" to statistics.
2) But since you think you are some kind of whizkid, here are the percentages:

House
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served in military
R 60%
D 40%


Senate
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served
R 54%
D 46%

So who needs remedial math?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well, infoschmuck, I suggest you STFU since you didn't even bother to do the math.

1) We're going to have a hard time applying the term "chickenhawk" to statistics.
2) But since you think you are some kind of whizkid, here are the percentages:

House
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served in military
R 60%
D 40%


Senate
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served
R 54%
D 46%

So who needs remedial math?

You missed Infohawk's point (but, nice name calling there.)

A chickenhawk would be one of the people who didn't serve but is calling for use of force in Iraq and to "stay the course", etc.

Of the 46% of the Republicans who did not serve, how many vocally supported the unjustified war on Iraq?

How many of the 54% of the Democrats who did not serve vocally supported the unjustified war on Iraq?

See the point?

 

[alchemize]

What Bush has done was launch a first strike war against a people who did us no harm, and at the time were not engaged in hostilities towards others.

Where has this happened in US history before?

Panama
Grenada
Kosovo
Vietnam


I'm sure there are more.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Infohawk

154 members of congress with service.

119 in the house
71 Republicans
48 Democrats

35 in the senate
19 Republicans
16 Democrats.

There you have it. Now if we can match up their voting record on Iraq, we can find out which party has more Chickenhawks. I'm guessing statistically where it would end up...

This is "fuzzy" statistics. These numbers do not speak to the number of chickenhawks. To do that, you would have to count the number of Republicans who didn't serve and act like they have served (or whatever your definition of chickenhawk is) to the number of Democrats who act like they served but didn't.

Another interesting point that your numbers miss is that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress! To really show that Republicans serve more, you need to take percentages. It is likely that Republicans do serve more, but your numbers --out of context-- do not show that. And your numbers certainly do not speak to the proportion of chickenhaws in either party.

I suggest you take a community college course on statistics or visit your local library.

Well, infoschmuck, I suggest you STFU since you didn't even bother to do the math.

1) We're going to have a hard time applying the term "chickenhawk" to statistics.
2) But since you think you are some kind of whizkid, here are the percentages:

House
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served in military
R 60%
D 40%


Senate
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served
R 54%
D 46%

So who needs remedial math?

It is sad you need to resort to insults. I am guessing you are angry I pointed out the flaws in your mistakes. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes. Think of it as a learning experience.

As conjur noted, you are missing the point.

You are counting the number of people who have served, which says nothing about the number of chickenhawks. Why? Chickenhaws are presumably people who haven't served. Hence your statistics don't show anything except that Republicans tend to serve a little more than Democrats. This says nothing about chickenhaws. Understand?

What you want to do is get the number of people that haven't served in each party and that act like they have been in the military.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Infohawk

154 members of congress with service.

119 in the house
71 Republicans
48 Democrats

35 in the senate
19 Republicans
16 Democrats.

There you have it. Now if we can match up their voting record on Iraq, we can find out which party has more Chickenhawks. I'm guessing statistically where it would end up...

This is "fuzzy" statistics. These numbers do not speak to the number of chickenhawks. To do that, you would have to count the number of Republicans who didn't serve and act like they have served (or whatever your definition of chickenhawk is) to the number of Democrats who act like they served but didn't.

Another interesting point that your numbers miss is that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress! To really show that Republicans serve more, you need to take percentages. It is likely that Republicans do serve more, but your numbers --out of context-- do not show that. And your numbers certainly do not speak to the proportion of chickenhaws in either party.

I suggest you take a community college course on statistics or visit your local library.

Well, infoschmuck, I suggest you STFU since you didn't even bother to do the math.

1) We're going to have a hard time applying the term "chickenhawk" to statistics.
2) But since you think you are some kind of whizkid, here are the percentages:

House
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served in military
R 60%
D 40%


Senate
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served
R 54%
D 46%

So who needs remedial math?

It is sad you need to resort to insults. I am guessing you are angry I pointed out the flaws in your mistakes. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes. Think of it as a learning experience.

As conjur noted, you are missing the point.

You are counting the number of people who have served, which says nothing about the number of chickenhawks. Why? Chickenhaws are presumably people who haven't served. Hence your statistics don't show anything except that Republicans tend to serve a little more than Democrats. This says nothing about chickenhaws. Understand?

What you want to do is get the number of people that haven't served in each party and that act like they have been in the military.

Did I hurt your feelings? OK InfoPartisan, how's that, better?

Another interesting point that your numbers miss is that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress! To really show that Republicans serve more, you need to take percentages. It is likely that Republicans do serve more, but your numbers --out of context-- do not show that

That's what I responded to. My numbers, in context, show that.

You could never measure who is a chickenhawk/who isn't. It would be like measuing who is an A-hole, who isn't on this board now THAT is fuzzy statistics.

Anyhow, I'm done. My point was that the original list was just a partisan pile of bunk from the usual partisan poster.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Infohawk

154 members of congress with service.

119 in the house
71 Republicans
48 Democrats

35 in the senate
19 Republicans
16 Democrats.

There you have it. Now if we can match up their voting record on Iraq, we can find out which party has more Chickenhawks. I'm guessing statistically where it would end up...

This is "fuzzy" statistics. These numbers do not speak to the number of chickenhawks. To do that, you would have to count the number of Republicans who didn't serve and act like they have served (or whatever your definition of chickenhawk is) to the number of Democrats who act like they served but didn't.

Another interesting point that your numbers miss is that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress! To really show that Republicans serve more, you need to take percentages. It is likely that Republicans do serve more, but your numbers --out of context-- do not show that. And your numbers certainly do not speak to the proportion of chickenhaws in either party.

I suggest you take a community college course on statistics or visit your local library.

Well, infoschmuck, I suggest you STFU since you didn't even bother to do the math.

1) We're going to have a hard time applying the term "chickenhawk" to statistics.
2) But since you think you are some kind of whizkid, here are the percentages:

House
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served in military
R 60%
D 40%


Senate
Total Population
R 52%
D 48%
Served
R 54%
D 46%

So who needs remedial math?

It is sad you need to resort to insults. I am guessing you are angry I pointed out the flaws in your mistakes. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes. Think of it as a learning experience.

As conjur noted, you are missing the point.

You are counting the number of people who have served, which says nothing about the number of chickenhawks. Why? Chickenhaws are presumably people who haven't served. Hence your statistics don't show anything except that Republicans tend to serve a little more than Democrats. This says nothing about chickenhaws. Understand?

What you want to do is get the number of people that haven't served in each party and that act like they have been in the military.

Did I hurt your feelings? OK InfoPartisan, how's that, better?

Another interesting point that your numbers miss is that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress! To really show that Republicans serve more, you need to take percentages. It is likely that Republicans do serve more, but your numbers --out of context-- do not show that

That's what I responded to. My numbers, in context, show that.

You could never measure who is a chickenhawk/who isn't. It would be like measuing who is an A-hole, who isn't on this board now THAT is fuzzy statistics.

Anyhow, I'm done. My point was that the original list was just a partisan pile of bunk from the usual partisan poster.

You did not hurt my feelings. It is interesting that you continue to call me names though. You must still be angry. Take a deep breath.


"You could never measure who is a chickenhawk/who isn't."

Of course you could. First, we define chickenhawk. One common definition is someone who accused others of being chickens but who didn't serve in the military themselves. To do this, we count the number of democrats that didn't serve and who called others chickens. We divide that by the number of Democrats. Next, we do the same thing with the number of Republicans. We compare the two and see which party has more chickenhaws.

"Anyhow, I'm done. "
I urge you to "stay the course" and not "cut and run." It can be hard to think things out and debate, but it can be educational for you too.

Your faulty statistics have nothing with me being a Democrat or Repubican or a liberal or a conservative. They should be criticized because the conclusions you drew from them were unreasonable.

 

[Corn]

Of course you could. First, we define chickenhawk. One common definition is someone who accused others of being chickens but who didn't serve in the military themselves. To do this, we count the number of democrats that didn't serve and who called others chickens. We divide that by the number of Democrats. Next, we do the same thing with the number of Republicans. We compare the two and see which party has more chickenhaws.

Sooo, let's see those numbers then!

 

[Zedtom]

This bickering is going nowhere. What have you two: alchemize and infohawk, done for your country lately?

Are either of you veterans?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: alchemize

What Bush has done was launch a first strike war against a people who did us no harm, and at the time were not engaged in hostilities towards others.

Where has this happened in US history before?

Panama
Grenada
Kosovo
Vietnam

I'm sure there are more.

Nice list . . . but you could essentially include most of this hemisphere.

You do realize your chickenhawk argument is weak? These types of social statistics are as valid as the methods used to calculate them. It's abundantly obvious the overwelming majority of GOP twits in Congress supported this war . . . yet less than 60% have any kind of military service (which is generous considering most saw nothing more than JAG or Guard). It's also clear that Democratic support for the war has virtually always been tepid. Now a couple would pose for cameras and say they support the troops but a scarce minority showed anything comparable to the GOP appetite for conflict.

It's the mismatch that Infohawk is highlighting. If you look a Bush's inner circle . . . there's plenty of chickenhawks and ALL eagerly supported this war. Yet prominent administration (and GOP faithful) . . . Powell, Scrowcroft, Zinni . . . were far more demur.

As for Hastert and the cackling idiots in the House . . . they tried to make fun of McCain (he's a Republican?) and then tried indignation (references to wounded troops). It was a stark lesson in hypocrisy in fiscal and foreign policy.

You could do a similar calculation for fiscal conservatives vs FOS conservatives. Tom DeLay had the gall to call their buget proposal "incredible". He was one descriptor short . . . it's an incredible pile of poo.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Speaking as a service member (and political independent with liberal leanings), these statistics are almost totally meaningless IMO. There are certainly those (Inouye, Kerrey, McCain) who have made tremendous sacrifices for their country, but in general I don't think military service is a prerequisite to making informed decisions on the use of force.

Each veteran has a completely distinct and different experience in the military, and each serves with his own set of motivations and at his own level of performance. There are plenty of blustering, ignorant veterans, and plenty of wise, brave men and women who declined to serve in the military for any of millions of different reasons. Military service (or any other public service IMO) speaks well of a politician, and provides useful perspective, but being a veteran doesn't make one wise.

That said, in a battle between McCain and Hastert pertaining to military service and sacrifice, I'll take McCain every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
This bickering is going nowhere. What have you two: alchemize and infohawk, done for your country lately?

Are either of you veterans?

Zedtom, the fact that either of us are veterans or not does nothing to demonstrate that either are arguments are false. I was not bickering, I was trying to show the other poster why his reasoning was flawed.

Your post is completely off-topic. The other poster was incorrect, but roughly on-topic. If you would like to start a thread about what others have done for their country, start a new thread, preferably in Off-topic since I don't see the relationship to Politics and News.

This will be my last post on this sub-topic (not including the statistics discussion) because it is off-topic.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Speaking as a service member (and political independent with liberal leanings), these statistics are almost totally meaningless IMO. There are certainly those (Inouye, Kerrey, McCain) who have made tremendous sacrifices for their country, but in general I don't think military service is a prerequisite to making informed decisions on the use of force.

Each veteran has a completely distinct and different experience in the military, and each serves with his own set of motivations and at his own level of performance. There are plenty of blustering, ignorant veterans, and plenty of wise, brave men and women who declined to serve in the military for any of millions of different reasons. Military service (or any other public service IMO) speaks well of a politician, and provides useful perspective, but being a veteran doesn't make one wise.

That said, in a battle between McCain and Hastert pertaining to military service and sacrifice, I'll take McCain every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Ditto.

 

[Zedtom]

No offense intended Infohawk, but what does splitting hairs over statistics have to do with the McCain-Hastert situation?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: alchemize

What Bush has done was launch a first strike war against a people who did us no harm, and at the time were not engaged in hostilities towards others.

Where has this happened in US history before?

Panama
Grenada
Kosovo
Vietnam


I'm sure there are more.

Note that they were engaged in fighting when we went in except for Panama, which was probably less justified than anything else save Iraq.

I'll give you Panama as a similar situation, however if you look at the conflict, Noriega was responsible for a great deal of drug trafficking, and we sent 24k troops in, took control and arrested Noreiga after he surrendered.

Grenada was a rescue mission and an intervention in an active bloody coup. It was also a way to get digs in on Castro. We were gone in two months.


Kosovo, VN.
You know they were interventions in ongoing conflicts, and in the case of the latter a rather foolish attempt to save the world from something that never really was a threat. It was a regional conflict, not one in a great chain of dominoes that would result in the world falling to the Red Menace.



No, nothing of this magnitude and kind has happened in my memory, and I hope never again.

I think neocon tactics have been pretty much discredited, and hopefully war will be seen as less of a desireable option.

 

[Infohawk]

There was a sub-topic related to which party had more chickenhawks. (I think the subtopic is related to the main thread because an implied idea was that Hastert is being a chickenhawk when he lectured McCain on war. Moreover it relates to politics and news.) The other poster took a position on the chickenhawk debate and used statistics to back up his claim. The problem was that his statistics had nothing to do with his claim that the Republicans had fewer chickenhawks (which may or not be true). I don't think it was splitting hairs over statistics. His reasoning was faulty. The alternative to me not responding would for statements to go unchallenged. If that occured on a widespread level, this board would turn to a "bleatfest" of superficial analysis. I don't think it's inappropriate to attack other poster's reasoning.

 

[Zedtom]

Your point is well taken, but I don't want to be accused of being a thread killer.

I did want to state that Senator McCain is a position now that he is the counterpoint to all the Bushites. There must be a voice of reason in the Republican party to balance the White House take on things, and if that means he has to take some punishment along the way, then he is the man that can handle it.

Ten years from now, he will be looked upon with more respect than our current president.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Corn

Of course you could. First, we define chickenhawk. One common definition is someone who accused others of being chickens but who didn't serve in the military themselves. To do this, we count the number of democrats that didn't serve and who called others chickens. We divide that by the number of Democrats. Next, we do the same thing with the number of Republicans. We compare the two and see which party has more chickenhaws.

Sooo, let's see those numbers then!

Damn, you're a lazy S.o.B.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
There was a sub-topic related to which party had more chickenhawks. (I think the subtopic is related to the main thread because an implied idea was that Hastert is being a chickenhawk when he lectured McCain on war. Moreover it relates to politics and news.) The other poster took a position on the chickenhawk debate and used statistics to back up his claim. The problem was that his statistics had nothing to do with his claim that the Republicans had fewer chickenhawks (which may or not be true). I don't think it was splitting hairs over statistics. His reasoning was faulty. The alternative to me not responding would for statements to go unchallenged. If that occured on a widespread level, this board would turn to a "bleatfest" of superficial analysis. I don't think it's inappropriate to attack other poster's reasoning.

If you are done giving conjur a back massage and me the finger, you'll notice that my point was never one that there were more or less chickenhawks in one party or the other, but rather that the "list" was quite simply a partisan fabrication by a partisan machine-gun poster who wasn't talented enough to come up with his own argument. He just alt-tabs between moveon.org or whatever left wing web site he has and this one.

 

[conjur]

Oh...he won't be finished with my back for quite some time now.