Voting preference of the military

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, the "brainwashing"... wasn't that the part where they take you in the saucer and do the experiments on you?

No, that was fun tho

I wonder why most GI's are Repub? If you openly stated you were Dem you would be strung up. I didn't know/care about politics.

No comment on your fascist boy giving you raises smaller than Clinton gave you? I guess the topics that sting get ignored.

Strung up? Like Lt. Gov Steele being put in blackface because he's "off the plantation"? How about Steel and Swann being called "lawn jockeys"? That whole "party of tolerance" schtick is being exposed for what it is...bullshit.

As for raises... everyone gets a larger slice of pie when there's fewer people at the table...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dude - the "war for oil" and "war for Halliburton" rhetoric is SOOOO 2004... and again, if this was true... where's the indictments and convictions?

Right, all crimes go indicted and punished. I'm thinking here..... hmmmm, where would these investigations and indictments come from..... hmmmm, I can't think here.... oh yea, could it be Congress? OH YEA, but the Repugs have that lined with their buddies so that will never happen unless we get control of at least 1 house, which is why Bush is shitting his pants right now. He doesn;t give a shit abiout yoru party, just that he can slither out of office b4 the Dem storm becomes a reality.

Hmm.... I'd say the whole Abramoff deal pretty much shoots THAT conspiracy theory out of the water.... what else ya got?

So with one set of convictions from the same incident that means all are accounted for. We'll see what comes down if the Dems get control of one house.

BTW, these investigations DO come from Congress.

I'm not saying "one pays for all"... but does sorta neatly pop that conspiracy bubble, now don't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Strung up? Like Lt. Gov Steele being put in blackface because he's "off the plantation"? How about Steel and Swann being called "lawn jockeys"? That whole "party of tolerance" schtick is being exposed for what it is...bullshit.

As opposed to ACTUAL corruption.. ACTUAL INTOLERANCE like the Cof CC.. you know.. the uptown klan.... you know like all the militias we have heard SQUAT about now for 6 years.. because they came to power.... or the hypocrisy of the DO AS I SAY not as I do to little boys.

[ExAFO 0]

Oh yeah....

I like kittens. They're fluffy and say "meow" a lot.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Strung up? Like Lt. Gov Steele being put in blackface because he's "off the plantation"? How about Steel and Swann being called "lawn jockeys"? That whole "party of tolerance" schtick is being exposed for what it is...bullshit.

As opposed to ACTUAL corruption.. ACTUAL INTOLERANCE like the Cof CC.. you know.. the uptown klan.... you know like all the militias we have heard SQUAT about now for 6 years.. because they came to power.... or the hypocrisy of the DO AS I SAY not as I do to little boys.

As opposed to "we don't care if you actually SCREW little boys...just don't talk against it"....right? Doesn't matter what you actually did, just don't be a hypocrite, that's the important part!!

Which, oddly enough, ties in PERFECTLY with my post above... imagine that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Which, oddly enough, ties in PERFECTLY with my post above... imagine that?

Nope it does not...not in the slightest.
Face it you will support the administration and Halliburton no matter what they do... just the same as your vaunted republicans.. no matter what they do

Someday you will come home... and its going to be a changed country

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Which, oddly enough, ties in PERFECTLY with my post above... imagine that?

Nope it does not...not in the slightest.
Face it you will support the administration and Halliburton no matter what they do... just the same as your vaunted republicans.. no matter what they do

Someday you will come home... and its going to be a changed country

I'll support the candidate or politician whos views agree with mine, yes... just as I have since I was first able to vote.

*just as a reminder, I don't work for Halliburton/KBR...in fact, the only large companies I've worked for were GTE and ITT...sorry to bust your "evil mercenary contractor" line you were working...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

As for raises... everyone gets a larger slice of pie when there's fewer people at the table...

That had no relevance.

-Reagan = large force and puny pay increases
-Bush1 = shrinking force, big pay raises
-Clinton = Still shrinking force, pay raises between Bush1 and Regan
-Bush2 = slight increase in troop numbers over Clinton, pay raise about like his dad's

So thee is no correlation, just that Reagan was fraud.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

As for raises... everyone gets a larger slice of pie when there's fewer people at the table...

That had no relevance.

-Reagan = large force and puny pay increases
-Bush1 = shrinking force, big pay raises
-Clinton = Still shrinking force, pay raises between Bush1 and Regan
-Bush2 = slight increase in troop numbers over Clinton, pay raise about like his dad's

So thee is no correlation, just that Reagan was fraud.

From stripes.com

***When military pay raises over the last 30 years are factored for inflation, the following is apparent:

* President Carter presided over the lowest average pay raises in a four-year presidential term. The budgets he signed into law (budget years 1978-81) contained raises that consistently lagged behind inflation (-2.9 percent, on average).
* Both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush approved the highest average pay raises in their first terms (+2.3 percent).
* Reagan’s second term was less impressive (-0.6 percent).
* President George H.W. Bush’s average during his single term was a wash (0.0 percent).
* President Clinton’s first term lagged inflation (-0.1 percent), but improved with his second term (+1.7 percent).
* George W. Bush’s second term is yet to be completed. However, the trend for the first two years of his budgets is trending negative (-1.2 percent).

The author’s statement about Republican average pay raises (+4.3 percent) versus Democratic average raises (+4.9 percent) doesn’t tell the whole story. By considering the effects of inflation, the complete data set shows the opposite. Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased military pay in absolute terms by +0.8 percent while Democratic administrations have tended to decrease military pay by -0.4 percent.[/url]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Royd 0]

Quote

Which is why, as in the outside world, as you see more advanced education, you see more Dem votes, with the exception of education+fundie christianity, which votes GOP rabidly.

Is that why dems push for voting rights for illegal aliens and convicted felons?

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Which is why, as in the outside world, as you see more advanced education, you see more Dem votes, with the exception of education+fundie christianity, which votes GOP rabidly.

Is that why dems push for voting rights for illegal aliens and convicted felons?

You have a cite for that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Here

This is the same ACORN group that got busted with moveon.org in '04 for trying the same thing...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As for raises... everyone gets a larger slice of pie when there's fewer people at the table...

That had no relevance.

-Reagan = large force and puny pay increases
-Bush1 = shrinking force, big pay raises
-Clinton = Still shrinking force, pay raises between Bush1 and Regan
-Bush2 = slight increase in troop numbers over Clinton, pay raise about like his dad's

So thee is no correlation, just that Reagan was fraud.

From stripes.com

Quote

When military pay raises over the last 30 years are factored for inflation, the following is apparent:

* President Carter presided over the lowest average pay raises in a four-year presidential term. The budgets he signed into law (budget years 1978-81) contained raises that consistently lagged behind inflation (-2.9 percent, on average).
* Both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush approved the highest average pay raises in their first terms (+2.3 percent).
* Reagan’s second term was less impressive (-0.6 percent).
* President George H.W. Bush’s average during his single term was a wash (0.0 percent).
* President Clinton’s first term lagged inflation (-0.1 percent), but improved with his second term (+1.7 percent).
* George W. Bush’s second term is yet to be completed. However, the trend for the first two years of his budgets is trending negative (-1.2 percent).

The author’s statement about Republican average pay raises (+4.3 percent) versus Democratic average raises (+4.9 percent) doesn’t tell the whole story. By considering the effects of inflation, the complete data set shows the opposite. Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased military pay in absolute terms by +0.8 percent while Democratic administrations have tended to decrease military pay by -0.4 percent.[/url]

***As for raises... everyone gets a larger slice of pie when there's fewer people at the table...

So this point of yours is wrong. You were trying to saying how the horrible Dems cut the personnel, so they had more budget for fewer people.

I established it had no relevance in that the troop number rose slightly under Reagan, then declined for 12 years under Bush/ Clinton, then rose slighly under Bush 2. The Raises weren't consistent with each president's troop number.

Now your argument is that the pay raises are tied into inflation, or you're using the rate of inflation as a standard in which to judge the amount of the raise, which is it?

My general statement is that Reagan was supposed to be a military lover, yet he gave puny raises, punier than that Queer-loving Clinton, right? So Clinton cut the military budget, cut troop numbers, not as much as his predecessor, but a fair amount, and still gave higher raises than Reagan. I imagine it had something to do with military people living in poverty and he was good for people in poverty.

Then to make your obscure argument even more selective, you break down the raises by term, rather than the totality of their terms if it applies. This is pure statistical manipulation.

But do remember, I never claimed anything about pay raises based upon rate of inflation, I merely debunked your assertion that troop numbers had no correlation with amount of raise.

You gave a general citation rather than a specific one for your argument. Also, not saying they're incorrect with your/their statistical argument, but it is a military site, so they're going to hate faggot-loving presidents (as the right wing would say) and use any obscure means to make an argument.

Look what Bush is doing with 2007 raises:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2005paycharts/a/paycharts.htm

Basic Pay Charts for Calendar Year 2007. Congress has approved a 2.2 percent increase in Basic Pay, as well as a separated "targeted" increase for some members.

2006 Military Base Pay includes an across-the-board 3.1 percent pay raise, effective on January 1, 2006.

Gave a 29% smaller raise than last year. Why don't we use GNP/GDP or whatever until we obscurely make your argument.

I had a military pay chart saved, I can't find it now. Anyway, I read it and noticed Regan's pay increases were puny, 0 for one year as I recall.

[matthewcline 0]

In all fairness only ONE Dem in that Article openly supported them. I also didn't see a direct link to "illegal imagrants". ( I did hear a GOV say it in support of a Sen. Candidate than retrack it when it started to hurt the two of thems re-elct bids)

Question; Why are they opposed to the forms being turned in for some one they registered to vote? IS it to keep the Local, State and Federal Elections people from finding fruad?

I have no Party affiliation but I guess I would be considered a "Moderate". Although I hate ALL plitics and hope one day the Declaration and its intent will be followed.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[matthewcline 0]

Also lets not forget that Congress makes the bills too. The defense budget is always a comprimise and all invovled can take credit/blame, but we tend to only assign it to the POTUS.

The better judge of the Military Vote would be its Moral.

As I serve from Regon till now, I can say I felt better and had a higher moral under Regan and Bush 1, but not under Clinton and am losing tolerance for the current admin.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Oh-oh, I gave numbers that disagree with your assertation...

Don't think they're real? Disprove them with some numbers.

In the meantime...

Here's a tissue

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

In all fairness only ONE Dem in that Article openly supported them. I also didn't see a direct link to "illegal imagrants". ( I did hear a GOV say it in support of a Sen. Candidate than retrack it when it started to hurt the two of thems re-elct bids)

Question; Why are they opposed to the forms being turned in for some one they registered to vote? IS it to keep the Local, State and Federal Elections people from finding fruad?

I have no Party affiliation but I guess I would be considered a "Moderate". Although I hate ALL plitics and hope one day the Declaration and its intent will be followed.

The DNC applauds courts overturning basic protections against vote fraud... then cries to the news about exit polls not matching votes.

An ACORN that fell near the tree, from 2004:

Quote

Most of the fraud has come from registration drives, where people at grocery stores or on the streets ask you to sign up. 9News has learned many workers have re-registered voters multiple times by changing or making up information about them. 9News has documented 719 cases of potentially fraudulent forms at county election offices show fraudulent names, addresses, social security numbers or dates of birth in Denver, Douglas, Adams, Boulder and Lake counties. Information from other counties is still coming in.

Some voter registration application forms are completely bogus. Others belong to legitimate voters, who have had one or two facts changed that could affect their registration when they show up at the polls November 2nd. Tom Stanislawski registered to vote six years ago. But this summer, someone signed him up again and changed his party affiliation. "My concern would be I'd walk in November 2nd and be unable to vote," he said.

Some of the registration drive workers earn $2 per application or about $10 an hour. One woman admitted to forging three people's names on about 40 voter registration applications. Kym Cason says she was helping her boyfriend earn more money from a get-out-the-vote organization called ACORN or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN works with low or moderate-income families on housing issues. Cason said her extra registrations earned her boyfriend $50.

Gerald Obi says workers pressured him to keep registering to vote so they too could earn extra cash. When asked how many times he had registered this year, Obi said, "about 35 times."

But... making voters show valid ID is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Here

This is the same ACORN group that got busted with moveon.org in '04 for trying the same thing...

That link in no way supports your assertion that Democrats are pushing for voting rights for illegal aliens. Try again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Here

This is the same ACORN group that got busted with moveon.org in '04 for trying the same thing...

That link in no way supports your assertion that Democrats are pushing for voting rights for illegal aliens. Try again.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=14862

There you go, happy now, Professor?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Also lets not forget that Congress makes the bills too. The defense budget is always a comprimise and all invovled can take credit/blame, but we tend to only assign it to the POTUS.

The better judge of the Military Vote would be its Moral.

As I serve from Regon till now, I can say I felt better and had a higher moral under Regan and Bush 1, but not under Clinton and am losing tolerance for the current admin.

Quote

The better judge of the Military Vote would be its Moral.

Yes, the military moral is bad..... oh, morale

Morale can be regional, so I don't place a lot on that. Also, I'm sure the rhetoric was, "That faggot-loving POS is now our CIC, fuck this." So ther was the placebo factor that might have diminished morale. I didn't think there was a lot of morale when I was in, but I was just in for Reagan.

Quote

Also lets not forget that Congress makes the bills too. The defense budget is always a comprimise and all invovled can take credit/blame, but we tend to only assign it to the POTUS.

Congress has got to appropriate it, but the pres can veto it so they know not to waste time by writing shit that won't pass, so ultimatley the pres has the proverbial fuzzy nuts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh-oh, I gave numbers that disagree with your assertation...

Don't think they're real? Disprove them with some numbers.

In the meantime...

Here's a tissue

Quote

Oh-oh, I gave numbers that disagree with your assertation...

Don't think they're real? Disprove them with some numbers.

My assertion: As for puny pay raises, they were there, remember? Of course the fascist pig did spend tons on military toys, not just give it to the troops he pretended to love.

Your assertion: As for raises... everyone gets a larger slice of pie when there's fewer people at the table...

My assertion: That had no relevance.

-Reagan = large force and puny pay increases
-Bush1 = shrinking force, big pay raises
-Clinton = Still shrinking force, pay raises between Bush1 and Regan
-Bush2 = slight increase in troop numbers over Clinton, pay raise about like his dad's

So thee is no correlation, just that Reagan was fraud.

Your assertion: When military pay raises over the last 30 years are factored for inflation, the following is apparent:……The author’s statement about Republican average pay raises (+4.3 percent) versus Democratic average raises (+4.9 percent) doesn’t tell the whole story.

My assertion: So this point of yours is wrong. You were trying to saying how the horrible Dems cut the personnel, so they had more budget for fewer people.

Your assertion: Oh-oh, I gave numbers that disagree with your assertation...

SUMMARY:

1) I say that Reagan was a pres that gave small pay raises

2) You say it was based upon the size of the military; more people, smaller raises available

3) I say that there is no relevance, as troops numbers and pay raises didn’t inversely correlate

4) You change the issue to pay raises in reference to inflation, therefore even tho the Dems gave more, they didn’t give as much per the rate of inflation

5) I said that we weren’t comparing inflation to pay raises, just gross pay raises by presidents

6) You say the numbers are relevant to gross pay raises


CONCLUSION: We can look at:
- GDP / GNP,
- cost of living,
- interest rates,
- population,
- size of military,
- location of military personnel,
- morale within the military (although hard to measure),
- rank distribution,
- mortality rate, attrition,
- and a myriad of other statistical reference and make arguments that support all kinds if things.

The point I was making FROM THE START was that Reagan didn’t give very big pay raises and I am right. You tried to counter by saying that fewer people in active duty would mean more money for the remainder of people in active duty, I debunked that so you morphed the argument to that of an inflationary index. I never disputed or confirmed that and you website was that of a very general one and not the article or actual data:

http://stripes.com

I’m not disputing the inflationary index, nor have I ever, however I’m not convinced either, therefore you have not debunked any of my assertions. My assertions stand undisputed, whereas yours that the shrinking military troop numbers led to more available cash has been debunked by me. Furthermore, you’re taking a 30-year span, whereas I was only referring to individual presidents. I don’t give you permission to modify my assertions because you can’t successfully dispute the ones I made.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here

This is the same ACORN group that got busted with moveon.org in '04 for trying the same thing...

That link in no way supports your assertion that Democrats are pushing for voting rights for illegal aliens. Try again.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=14862

There you go, happy now, Professor?

You could try a reputable source.

But maybe you remember who wants to fast-track illegals to citizenship. I hope you appreciate the source too.
www.washtimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm

Why, it's none other than your hero, George W. Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[matthewcline 0]

Spelling is not my strong point, ask Kerry.

I never heard a leader push a party on a troop or troops in 20 + years. This to me, with all the Regs AGAINST it, seems a very large exageration.

But the troops I have served with had a lot of issues with Clinton and the ones I seve with now are feeling the same way about the current POTUS.

We still see troops having to use food stamps and "wick" to feed a family of three!

But the military also got used by Clinton in his "social experiment" for homosexuality.
I have no issue with ones sexual orientation and see no need for "extra" rights becuase they choose to sleep with the same gender. I also saw no need to change the way the military ran its self in this regard. The regs about it had pretty much been ingnored except by those trying to draw attention to thier "cause" and those who used it to get out.

I find that when it comes to the military both parties are full of ass clowns who are only truly looking out for them selves.

Want to know who the military is voting for next term? ask the thousands who are retiring at the first date of eligability. Look what party they are running under in Presidential Elections, Senate, House etc etc.

If the Sec Def had been fired last term Bush would have gotten 10 to 15 % more Mil votes acording a an Army times pole last year, I probably mis quoted that and it is Army votes now that I think about it.

McCain, Powel and Leiberman (sp) can we do that next time?

What is wrong with a three man oval office?

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The average muslim is not turning against the facists in their midst.

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

Neither is the average Republican.

That is not true, the average republican is as sick of the idiots breaking the law as the most liberal person.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I get the feeling you've never been in the military. If so, you would understand that there is a severe brainwashing process they call basic training and although they never raise the Republican banners, they make it clear which side supports the military and which side supports the faggot commies, or so they would have you think.

From this, I think it is clear you never went to basic either. Or maybe you just forgot what it was like.

Quote

• Quote