• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MYTH??? Conservatives= prior military service, Liberals = draft dodgers

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Pennstate, that list fails to mention many republicans who have served (Dole, McCain, Bush Sr.) and fails to list democrats who haven't (Clinton). It's pretty obvious you or whoever compiled that information wants to see reality in a way condusive to their agenda. What is it like to be wrong most of the time?

Our modern presidents seem to lack a military record. With presidents no longer coming from modest backgrounds, lacking a military record, with spiced-up public service records...you wonder how that affects their ability to govern a nation? They do look great on TV, though.
 
JellyBaby, it's designed to be an incomplete list. All it's supposed to do is show that there are Democrats that served, and Republicans that didn't. A full list would be "fair", but the point would probably be lost with so many people on one list.
 
Pennstate, that list fails to mention many republicans who have served (Dole, McCain, Bush Sr.)


I believe Dole and McCain are on the list.

Yes, CLinton is left out and Bush Sr. Well chalk it up
 
Originally posted by: Pennstate
If Cleland used it during his election campaigns, I don't really care. But to use it whenever someone disagrees with you, that is just plain wrong. Patriotism, to me,means protecting not only the physical boundries of America, but also the freedom that goes along with it; and free speech is one of them.
Click to expand...


He does. He tries to use his war experience as why his opponent is bad. Why his opponent isn't good for Georgia and also the reason he gets respect on the Hill. He also does the same thing in DC.
 
Well not surprisingly the list pennstate posted was from www.awolbush.com. Here is a complete list of who has served Congress. The overwhelming majority of people I have met in the service are conservative and support the Republicans. It is perceived that we are better served by a Republican administration and Congress. I would not say that this is true in all cases but let the record speak for itself. Who controls Congress has as much to do with it as who is in the White House.


BTW a quick count shows 25 Republican and 17 Democrat Senators have served and 83 Republican and 53 Democrat Representatives have served. I would also add that to say someone is or is not patriotic based on military service is idiotic. You might, I repeat might, be able to argue that you are better positioned to legislate military affairs after having served but even that would be debatable. However it has been my experience that you certainly command more respect from those of us in uniform if you have previously served.
 
Well there is some truth to it I think.

Are you saying that they are currently liberals/conservatives, or when the draft was in affect they had those political philosophies?

I believe that now, if you look at those who served in the military thought the draft and those that ?dodged? it, there will be a larger number of current-day liberals who dodged it (due to the fact that most of those dodging it wanted an education, and liberal are the only ones that know anything 😀) ß----- Actually, it is that those that were dodging it protested the war, and then those people had ?liberal? views (peace, social harmony), and those values are still in them since most people don?t switch political ideologies that are that strong in their adult life.

Currently, since there is no draft, and hasn?t been one in quite some while, this equation couldn?t be used. But it is a well-known fact that the majority of the men and women serving in the military now have learning towards the Republican Party (and in turn, will most likely have conservative ideologies)

That?s my take on it. And yes, I know, I didn?t do form my idea at all, so sue me.
 
I believe Dole and McCain are on the list.
Click to expand...
What that before or after your edit? Either way I may have missed them and if I did my mistake. Your post stil reeks of an agenda though and DaveS returns us to reality with
BTW a quick count shows 25 Republican and 17 Democrat Senators have served and 83 Republican and 53 Democrat Representatives have served.
Click to expand...
I'm not pro-republican but let truth be, eh?
 
I'm not pro-republican but let truth be, eh?
Click to expand...
You'll notice that many of those listed as hypocrites aren't Senators or Congressmen but big mouthed asswipes who pretend to speak for mainstream America. Idiots like that Gasbag Rush Limbaugh and that Certified Whacko B1 Bob Dornan.
 
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: Pennstate
Gov. Jesse Ventura, served as a Navy Seal
Click to expand...

He did :Q?! Whoa, he kicks ass!
Click to expand...

He accually wasn't a seal although he did go through BUDS training. HE wasn't in a seal team.
Click to expand...


Naval Special Warfare Command states:

"Our take is that Jesse Ventura is a SEAL. He even did his reserve time in SEAL Team ONE. He earned and wears the Trident....Captain Larry Bailey is probably the best guy to talk to about this, but OFFICIALLY, we think it's splitting hairs by Salisbury. The Navy considers Jesse Ventura to be a former SEAL. Hope that helps."

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

Captain Larry Bailey states:

JESSE VENTURA -- SEAL OR NOT?
Jesse Ventura went through UDT/SEAL Class 58 in 1970 and was assigned to UDT-12, where he spent three years (including three deployments to Subic Bay, Philippines). As a UDT frogman, he operated in Viet Nam waters and earned the US Viet Nam Service Ribbon. He undoubtedly, like so many UDT men of that era, went ashore in Viet Nam for short periods of time. After he was released from active duty in 1973, he joined Reserve SEAL Team ONE. The point here is that all graduates of BUD/S are referred to within the Naval Special Warfare community as SEALs. They received the same training, whether they went to SEAL Teams or Underwater Demolition Teams. The case made by Commander Salisbury on Fox News Channel recently is without merit; Jesse Ventura is a SEAL by any definition.

Larry Bailey, Captain, USN (Ret.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R.D. and Pam Russell, Co-Directors of Navel Special Warfare Archives state:

"The official view point of the Archives is that Jesse was a SEAL. He completed BUD/S and the SEAL course in the desert. The West Coast used UDT as a manpower pool so they could pull people at any time without there being a training delay."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
You'll notice that many of those listed as hypocrites aren't Senators or Congressmen but big mouthed asswipes who pretend to speak for mainstream America. Idiots like that Gasbag Rush Limbaugh and that Certified Whacko B1 Bob Dornan.
Click to expand...
So noted. "B1"....?
 
Whoa, turns out Democrats are a bunch of misogynists who do not want women in the halls of power. Look at this completely objective and impartial list of Senators that I found. 😕

Republicans:

Collins, Susan (R - ME)
Snowe, Olympia (R - ME)
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R - TX)

Democrats:

Bingaman, Jeff (D - NM)
Boxer, Barbara (D - CA)<-------She's a man, baby!
Byrd, Robert (D - WV)
 
Well, Hayabusarider, I will have a lot less trouble with partiotism when the people screaming it are the first ones into battle and the first ones to take casualties. It just seems the biggest mouth patriots are back home with lots of shares in the Carlyle Group.
 
Sorry Shotgun, I just wanten to test a new trigger mechanism on my post gun. I had a blank in there so nobody would get hurt. Hope you like the late addition fill in better.
 
its a fact that military people tend to vote more for conservatives, however I've never heard of your so called myth about military experience and draft dodging.
 
So where do people like me who are former military and Libertarian fit into this myth, or are we just the exception which proves the rule?
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
So where do people like me who are former military and Libertarian fit into this myth, or are we just the exception which proves the rule?
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...


We are ignoring you in the hope that you will come to your senses or go away. 😉
 
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Whoa, turns out Democrats are a bunch of misogynists who do not want women in the halls of power. Look at this completely objective and impartial list of Senators that I found. 😕

Republicans:

Collins, Susan (R - ME)
Snowe, Olympia (R - ME)
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R - TX)

Democrats:

Bingaman, Jeff (D - NM)
Boxer, Barbara (D - CA)<-------She's a man, baby!
Byrd, Robert (D - WV)
Click to expand...


Good point.
 
My concern is that many equate patriotism with military service. I do not think it has to be so. For the record, I become wary whenever someone starts throwing the word patriotism around. I tend to agree with Samuel Johnson on this point. My mental processes are trained to analyze a premise and them look for biases in supporting statements. I cannot say from the information given that one side is more or less "military" or the other. I can see someone testing this hypothesis by taking a large sample and seeing what party affiliations ARE. This is what I meant by objectivity. Using a scientific method to determine what the facts are, and not constructing a sample of people to prove a point EITHER way. That does not answer the qustion of Republican vs Democrat. Also, remember that Northern Republicans may be more liberal than Southern Democrats, so you need to be sure of what you want answered to avoid asking a question with a built in bias.

Now what does Pennstate's list show? That the named individuals served or did not serve. His point (as I understand it) was to refute the statement he asserts was made by Wolfowitz that the military always sides with the GOP. Allowing for the assumption that this statement is not literal (keyword always) and that he means a great majority of the time, he then backs up his argument with a list of names which seem not to have been picked at random. The Congress is a small enough body that the complete universe of politicians could be examined. This was not done. Was the sample representative of the Congress at large? If so, by what means was this done? Ok, for sake of argument, let us take this to be correct. Have we now come to his conclusion? No. We now have a list of who served along party lines. Assume the premise of serving in the military correlates with supporting it, and that his list is representative and correct. One more verifiable fact I will throw in. Democrats have historically supported less funding to the military than the Republicans. Anyone can check my statement if they care to. This is a neutral statement of fact. Democrats as a whole have different priorities than Republicans. I think this is generally agreed to as correct. So lets see.

Statement- " Myth-The military always sides with the GOP." What does the evidence say? That more Democrats served in the military than Republicans. He fails to address who the MILITARY collectively sides with. Result. Statement unproven.

Statement- "Myth- Conservatives serve more often" More often than who? Liberals or Democrats. Sam Nunn? Where did he fit in? Since the initial reference was to the GOP, I will take it that Republicans serve more often then Democrats. Based on the "proof", this is patently not true. In fact it seems that Republicans hardly ever serve, but Democrats do. Democrats serve more often, but fund less.

Conclusion. People who serve in the military and join Congress tend to not fund it as much as those who have never served.

Given that this list is representitive, the members of the military by and large belong to the Democratic Party and not the GOP.

To summarize:

Members of the military are Democrats who once they are no longer in the service, do not support the funding of the military to the degree that those who have never served do.

And of course this is the statement made initially, and it dovetails with reality. No wait...


All of this to say that I do not believe ANYBODY in something like this. I choose to examine the evidence critically, examine the biases of the presenter, and try to ascertain what MY biases are. After this, I may draw a conclusion or reach the determination that I cannot decide based on what is in front of me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we come to what I believe is the real issue, the insinuation that one side or the other is more or less "patriotic" than the opposition.

I think true patriotism is personal issue. One who acts in a way that he or she believes benefits their country could be said to be acting in a patriotic manner. Notice country, not government. Also patriotism does not depend on military service.

Let's revisit the Vietnam era.

Who is patriotic and who is not.

The person who

A) Fights in the war because he believes it is the right thing to do for his country
B) Does not fight, because he believes it is wrong and to the detriment of our society
C) Fights in the war IN SPITE of his belief that the war is doing enormous harm to our country
D) Does not fight, IN SPITE of his belief that he ought to be fighting, but does not.

To my way of thinking, A and B are being patriotic, and C and D not. It is not act of fighting or not fighting, but the doing of what is seen to be right. Nowhere does this depend on being conservative, liberal, Democrat or Republican. It has everything to do with making a judgement, and following through.

As far as sending others off to fight in their place-
Humans can either fight or not. They can do all sorts of evil. Yes I do believe in the concept of evil. Quaint perhaps. Perhaps I am out of my time. That is not for me to say. Back to the point. Cowards come in all sorts of affiliations. I can easily believe in a brave Liberal. Or a cowardly Conservative. I can just as easily believe the reverse. No one has ever demonstrated that one side ot the political spectrum is any better or worse in comportment than the other. I am more socially conservative than many others here. I am also more liberal than many. How does that make me take more or less satisfaction in the death of someones son in a ditch thousands of miles away? Just or unjust, a dead child is a dead child and I cannot bring them back. It will be a cold day in hell before I gladly send my child to die whatever the reason. Or your child.

I guess all this to say that I think people ought to look at others for what they do, really do, not what we would project on them because their point of view happens to be different than ourselves. Pidgenholing anyone because of their politics dehumanizes them. It is easier to berate them or even hate them then. Their pain can then be disregarded. Not people after all are they?

 
It's wonderful, Hayabusarider, I must say, to see a post expressing an idea with passion, reason, and conviction. It's nice to know there are people out there who can think. I'll bet, at least I certainly hope, a lot more people agree with you then necessarily always live up to what you've demonstrated.
 
M, in all of this, I wish we as a people valued mercy over revenge and forgiveness instead of spite. So much strife could be avoided if we could adopt this. It may not be the way of humanity to be so, but I can still hope. There is enough misery inherent in our existences, yet we seem bent on adding to suffering. Yet I still hope.
 
What I find irritating is those who either: Did not serve, and claim that others who did not serve were cowards (Rush vs. Bill Clinton) or, even worse, those who did not serve, and claim that others who DID serve were somehow less "patriotic" than themselves (Repubs vs. Al Gore).

Bodygaurds or no, Al was in greater danger of dying in combat that GWB junior ever was.

If you put on the uniform, you are saying that you are willing to lay your life down for this country. If you do not, if you avoid service, then you are saying something else. What that "something else" is, is for everyone else to determine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top