They just took control house/senate and look .....

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Hmmm.....So you think I'm the only one who holds that opinion.

I think the Rangle issue has been distorted by both sides, few people are really listening to his own words anymore!

Your interpretation of publicly available statements is sound (only if you agree with them) and all other interpretations are "utter nonsense", but on the other hand if you dont agree with publicly available statements they become right wing spin and are totally dismissed.

No, I only claimed your interpretation of Rangle's stunt was nonsense

When someone takes exception to the "G.I's are stupid" mantra, you accuse them of "piling on" a silly post.

The only "G.I.'s are stupid" mantra is the one used to defame war critics by accusing them of defaming the troops.

I don't believe Scooby thinks our troops are dumb...but I do think he made a very inarticulate statement.

But considering how the Military is having to lower standards in order to meet enlistment targets, it's easy for some to draw a parallel to Vietnam era stigma's...in a slippery slope sort of way.

You respond to others opinion by quickly reverting to veiled insults and third person name calling with your: idiocy, nonsense, makes no sense routine; All the while accusing others of not debating the issue. And dont forget, nothing personal here but "Its the Policy Stupid".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

My comments are in context.

Unlike many, I don't cherry pick fringe kookisims and whitewash others so I can define my opponent as I'd like to see them. It's you who are trigger happy as any with the "left wing loony" retort to anything which is uncomfortable or difficult.

My insults are not veiled, I'm calling BULL%$%$%$%$ on this intellectually sloppy and boorish mode of communication you so embrace, which avoids the real issues in favor of a poke to the liberal straw man with an overworn stick.

Instead of getting all in a huff, how about responding to my utter nonsense post? The meat, the substance of the issue.

Would Congress and the President view using US force differently if the burden was shared not by just those who choose to sign up...but by those who enjoy it's protection!

It's a valid and perhaps critical question to ask at this juncture in the history of our country. As I've said before, yes, it's a stunt...but given how receptive the political climate has been for constructive debate, perhaps that's the only way to get the question addressed.

-spence

[JohnR]

A few misconceptions and twists are made in these arguments - I found this on mostly DOD sites:

The American All Volunteer Military is better educated on average than the population of America. A higher percentage, significantly, of american military have HSD and those that do not are usually bootstrapped in a program for GED. A higher percentage of military from 18-35 have some college compared to the average population of America. Half of all americans from 18-24 do not qualify for military service due to health / education requirements.

Ethnicly, black americans are recruiting somewhat above and hispanic / asian american are recruiting at below their percentage of population. Recruitment of black americans is trending down.

The enlistment recruiting well mirrors the averages for America.

Interesting article:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2...13mythfact.pdf

[spence]

Reading Rangel's own statements, I don't think his argument has anything to do with education...but rather economics and the notion of "shared" sacrifice.

While I don't completely agree with his argument, Rangel does make a very valid point.

One one hand the War on Terror is being pitched as the single greatest threat to Western civilization this century, yet on the other we're being told to just "keep shopping" while the government cuts taxes and continues to rack up the national debt for our children.

To Rangel's point...shouldn't this sacrifice be shared among all Americans (including corporate interests) if the stakes are really that high?

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Instead of getting all in a huff, how about responding to my utter nonsense post? The meat, the substance of the issue.

Would Congress and the President view using US force differently if the burden was shared not by just those who choose to sign up...but by those who enjoy it's protection!

-spence

The utter nonsense is the notion that this issue is about a possible abstract consequence of the Draft reinstatement. The very basis for Rangels proposal is incorrect. His statement that the military disproprtionately consists of those of lower social bearing (Undeducated, poor, and minorities) is completely false. Want to debate the real issues? Heres a few of hundreds.

1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.

2) Diluting the strongest and most effecient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.

3) Lowering current Military admission standards

4) Substantial financial implications to support a milatary draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

The very basis for Rangels proposal is incorrect. His statement that the military disproprtionately consists of those of lower social bearing (Undeducated, poor, and minorities) is completely false.

Actually, Rangel's statements (as he's made them) seem to be supported by Pentagon statistics and non-partisan research done over the past few years.

• Nearly 1/2 of new recruits came from lower-middle-class to poor households
  
• Nearly 2/3 of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median
  
• All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan

Source: Washington Post

Put Rangel's comments in this context and it would seem as though his argument is more compelling than you might think.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually, Rangel's statemes (as he's made them) seem to be supported by Pentagon statistics and non-partisan research done over the past few years.

• Nearly 1/2 of new recruits came from lower-middle-class to poor households
  
• Nearly 2/3 of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median
  
• All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan

Source: Washington Post

-spence

Thats interesting when compared to these DOD statistics.

The overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq — nearly 74 percent — have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Thats interesting when compared to these DOD statistics.

The overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq — nearly 74 percent — have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.

You're comparing different stats. Who ever said the poorer communities were minority?

Additionally you'd need to study where the various minority groups served and where the deaths were occuring for it to have much meaning.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

You're comparing different stats. Who ever said the poorer communities were minority?

Additionally you'd need to study where the various minority groups served and where the deaths were occuring for it to have much meaning.

-spence

My guess is the, ethnicity and number of dead will remain constant with the current statistic even after the location of death data has been extrapolated and interjected to the statistic formula.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

My guess is the, ethnicity and number of dead will remain constant with the current statistic even after the location of death data has been extrapolated and interjected to the statistic formula.

And in context with Rangel's Bill, it would still be moot

-spence