The Politburo is traditionally associated with communism. I’m not sure what sense you mean it here.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, try this one on for size.
Of the 16.4 million US veterans who served in World War II, only about a third were volunteers. The rest were drafted. In fact, volunteerism was even less in evidence during World War II than it was during the Vietnam War. Just a quarter of the 2.6 million Americans who served in the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1973 were draftees.[/quote]
Okay - let’s have a quick math lesson here. WWII went from 1942-1946 (I know it was technically '41-'45, but it was December '41 - August '45). That’s 5 years, right? And there were 16.4 million vets, right?
Just to review - that’s 5 years of war and 16.4 million troops.
Vietnam - using your numbers - was 9 years long and had 2.6 million troops, right?
One more time: 9 years of war and 2.6 million troops.
In 1940, the U.S. population waas roughly 133 million - that’s a little high, but I am rounding up. If half were men we are talking 67 million eligible for the draft. Probably considerably less than that if you factor in kids, and the elderly.
In 1970, the population was 203 million. which would be roughly 101 million men, and considerably less, yada…yada…yada.
One last review:
WWII - 5 year war, 16.5 million troops, male population of 67 million. Volunteer force of about 5 million and change. Number of soldiers drafted - a little less than 11.5 million.
Viet Nam - 9 year war, 2.6 million troops, male population of 101 million. Volunteer force of about 2.1 million. Number drafted - a few thousand shy of 700K.
Do you see the problem I have with trying to compare WWII with Viet Nam? 2/3 the size, but put 8 times the number of troops in harm’s way. And still had a volunteer force twice the size of the entire theater in Vietnam.
You are saying that you would rather live in a country that is not allowed to have a military of any consequence, over living in the U.S. because the U.S. does not have a properly trained militia?
Try sending foreign troops down Main Street U.S.A. - and see how many privately owned firearms are waiting to greet you. No country in their right mind would attempt to invade the U.S. because they know that the U.S. is armed to the teeth.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
WWII - 5 year war, 16.5 million troops, male population of 67 million. Volunteer force of about 5 million and change. Number of soldiers drafted - a little less than 11.5 million.
Viet Nam - 9 year war, 2.6 million troops, male population of 101 million. Volunteer force of about 2.1 million. Number drafted - a few thousand shy of 700K.
Do you see the problem I have with trying to compare WWII with Viet Nam? 2/3 the size, but put 8 times the number of troops in harm’s way. And still had a volunteer force twice the size of the entire theater in Vietnam. [/quote]
You asked how many of the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were draftees, I responded. I don’t know why we’re splitting hairs over an issue that, at the core, we both agree on.
[quote]
We could do with a bit more of that in America. Hell, I might even move back.
You are saying that you would rather live in a country that is not allowed to have a military of any consequence…[/quote]
The military force defending Japan is the best in the world. It’s called the United States Armed Forces. 
And even their so-called Self-Defence Force ain’t too shabby. True, they have no nuclear weapons, and they are hardly equipped to start a war over any seas broader than the Sea of Japan, but they are still the fifth strongest military in the world after the US, China, the UK and France.
I believe the expression is “a well-regulated militia”.
Maybe they’ll just invade New Jersey.
There’s nothing wrong with being armed to the teeth. My contention is that Americans are “excellently armed” in spite of our government, a large contingent of which is actively working to see that it is otherwise. Ergo, not “absolutely free”.
I’ll move back to the States when the Second Amendment of the Constitution is properly upheld by the national government, along with the First, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth.
But that’s a topic for another thread.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
You asked how many of the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were draftees, I responded. I don’t know why we’re splitting hairs over an issue that, at the core, we both agree on.[/quote]
Ohhhhhhh…it was more a rhetorical “how many” than a literal one.
I was referring to what you said wrt the Swiss.
That’d be like invading your mother-inlaw’s house. Why in the fuck would you do that for anyway? The scenery? The ambience? The beer in the fridge?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
You asked how many of the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were draftees, I responded. I don’t know why we’re splitting hairs over an issue that, at the core, we both agree on.
Ohhhhhhh…it was more a rhetorical “how many” than a literal one. [/quote]
Aha. My mistake. Guess it was me who started the hair-splitting, then.
[quote]I believe the expression is “a well-regulated militia”.
I was referring to what you said wrt the Swiss.[/quote]
I know. And I was quoting the Constitution.
[quote]Maybe they’ll just invade New Jersey.
That’d be like invading your mother-inlaw’s house. Why in the fuck would you do that for anyway? The scenery? The ambience? The beer in the fridge?
[/quote]
Relatively soft target. Some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, so an enemy could count on the fewest privately-owned firearms greeting him on Main Street.
Wow. Judging by the # of entries in this thread it doesn’t look good for ol bushie. Either he is the stupidest president ever or he isn’t but either choice sucks haha
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Wow. Judging by the # of entries in this thread it doesn’t look good for ol bushie. Either he is the stupidest president ever or he isn’t but either choice sucks haha[/quote]
I think that if you only add up the number of posts that were actually on topic - you would be sadly disappointed.
But - no matter how stupid he is, or how incoherent his speeches are - he is still President. And he will be until January 2009.
So laugh all you want, but the joke is on you. He will retire having won his last four elections - and gloating over the fact that the democrats could never muster a candidate to defeat the “stupidest modern day President”. I think I would take being a winner over having the public perception of being a genius anyday.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
Wow. Judging by the # of entries in this thread it doesn’t look good for ol bushie. Either he is the stupidest president ever or he isn’t but either choice sucks haha
I think that if you only add up the number of posts that were actually on topic - you would be sadly disappointed.
But - no matter how stupid he is, or how incoherent his speeches are - he is still President. And he will be until January 2009.
So laugh all you want, but the joke is on you. He will retire having won his last four elections - and gloating over the fact that the democrats could never muster a candidate to defeat the “stupidest modern day President”. I think I would take being a winner over having the public perception of being a genius anyday. [/quote]
I would prefer being remembered as a good president who made wise, well thought-out choices and executed them well. Which I don’t think he will be. Time will tell and afford more objectivity.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
Wow. Judging by the # of entries in this thread it doesn’t look good for ol bushie. Either he is the stupidest president ever or he isn’t but either choice sucks haha
I think that if you only add up the number of posts that were actually on topic - you would be sadly disappointed.
But - no matter how stupid he is, or how incoherent his speeches are - he is still President. And he will be until January 2009.
So laugh all you want, but the joke is on you. He will retire having won his last four elections - and gloating over the fact that the democrats could never muster a candidate to defeat the “stupidest modern day President”. I think I would take being a winner over having the public perception of being a genius anyday.
I would prefer being remembered as a good president who made wise, well thought-out choices and executed them well. Which I don’t think he will be. Time will tell and afford more objectivity.[/quote]
I agree with this. I seriously doubt the history books 50 years from now will read, “But hey, he beat the democrats!!!”.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
You asked how many of the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy were draftees, I responded. I don’t know why we’re splitting hairs over an issue that, at the core, we both agree on.
Ohhhhhhh…it was more a rhetorical “how many” than a literal one.
I believe the expression is “a well-regulated militia”.
I was referring to what you said wrt the Swiss.
Maybe they’ll just invade New Jersey.
That’d be like invading your mother-inlaw’s house. Why in the fuck would you do that for anyway? The scenery? The ambience? The beer in the fridge?
[/quote]
Why invade NJ, you could just buy it. The corruption in this state is only rivaled by CT, at least in the Northeast.
Besides with the restrictive firearms laws in this state the locals would have to resort to slingshots to defend themselves.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I agree with this. I seriously doubt the history books 50 years from now will read, “But hey, he beat the democrats!!!”.[/quote]
I remeber the last time we had a two-term Republican President.
Ronnie was a clueless idiot, with his finger on “the button”. He was the worst President we ever had. Nancy was really running the show, and they would wake him up when they needed him to give a sound bite.
They wound up naming an airport after him, and he went down in history as one of the greates Presidents in the history of our nation.
I’m not saying that Bush is another Reagan, but he will be remembered much more fondly than Jimmy Carter will be.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I think it is too early to tell. That will depend not only on the next years of his presidency, but also on the swing the country makes after- if it stays conservative, or if there is a backlash. [/quote]
Agreed - although based on what the Dems have to offer, or lack thereof, i wouldn’t put a whole lot of hope in a liberal backlash.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I think it is too early to tell. That will depend not only on the next years of his presidency, but also on the swing the country makes after- if it stays conservative, or if there is a backlash.
Agreed - although based on what the Dems have to offer, or lack thereof, i wouldn’t put a whole lot of hope in a liberal backlash. [/quote]
I don’t know about that. Bush’s approval ratings are low. I think a lot of people are dissapoointed with his actions, policies, and leadership and looking for an alternative. But it cannot be a liberal alternative. That’s what Democrats need to understand. The Democrats need viable moderate, centrist alternatives to Bush’s policies, agenda, and ideology. That’s how they will win. Our citizenry is moderate. If the Republicans running in 2008 similarly improve upon the current administration, I would be just as happy, however.
[quote]hedo wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Maybe they’ll just invade New Jersey.
That’d be like invading your mother-inlaw’s house. Why in the fuck would you do that for anyway? The scenery? The ambience? The beer in the fridge?
Why invade NJ, you could just buy it. The corruption in this state is only rivaled by CT, at least in the Northeast.
Besides with the restrictive firearms laws in this state the locals would have to resort to slingshots to defend themselves.
[/quote]
Yeah, Hedo. That was what I was getting at.
It’s really funny that New Jersey has become the poster child for anti-freedom in recent years, considering that the New Jersey Militia was instrumental to the war effort during the Revolution. If not for the Militia, the entire colony might have gone loyalist, siding with King George rather than General George. I assume there aren’t too many people there siding with President George these days.
Thank God for men like John Hart, with the courage to stand up for his convictions, even though he suffered greatly for it. Hopefully a few more like him will grow in the Garden State in the future.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know about that. Bush’s approval ratings are low. I think a lot of people are dissapoointed with his actions, policies, and leadership and looking for an alternative. But it cannot be a liberal alternative. That’s what Democrats need to understand. The Democrats need viable moderate, centrist alternatives to Bush’s policies, agenda, and ideology. That’s how they will win. Our citizenry is moderate. If the Republicans running in 2008 similarly improve upon the current administration, I would be just as happy, however.[/quote]
There are 3 years left before the election, give or take a month. Bush won’t be running. His popularity at the current moment will have little, if any, influence on a Presidential race that is so far off.
But, my statement was I wouldn’t look for a liberal backlash. I think you make my point for me when you say that the democrats can’t run as a liberal. I translate that to mean that anyone that is very far to the left of Bush will have a hard time getting elected.
I do hear rumblings of a bigger, badder, more conservative Cankles making her rounds, though.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I seriously doubt the history books 50 years from now will read, “But hey, he beat the democrats!!!”.[/quote]
Nor will they read that he was stupid! His legacy will be judged upon his success in office. I know that that is troubling to many of you liberals.
However, pointing the finger and claiming that the President is stupid didn’t work very well when the liberals did that to Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s. He is considered as one of the most successful Presidents of all times!
Let me remind everyone that the democrats also claimed that Ike (1950’s) was stupid. He too is ranked high compared to other Presidents.
Finally, is it a coincidence that these three “stupid” republican Presidents were all elected to a second term by a wider margin than they won their first term?
Perhaps it’s the liberals who might be a little slow in picking up the fact that these three Presidents understood exactly what the public wanted and gave it to them!
Who is stupid?
If Ike and Reagan are any indication of how “stupid” two term republican Presidents will fare in history I think Bush is in good shape!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
There are 3 years left before the election, give or take a month. Bush won’t be running. His popularity at the current moment will have little, if any, influence on a Presidential race that is so far off.
But, my statement was I wouldn’t look for a liberal backlash. I think you make my point for me when you say that the democrats can’t run as a liberal. I translate that to mean that anyone that is very far to the left of Bush will have a hard time getting elected.
I do hear rumblings of a bigger, badder, more conservative Cankles making her rounds, though.
[/quote]
Hillary? Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying. But if the Democrats get their shit together, I don’t think Republicans with viewpoints and policies substantially similar to Bush’s will win.
Zeb, forget about intelligence. Forget about liberals and competition too. You think Bush is a good president? You think he’ll go down in history as one?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
There are 3 years left before the election, give or take a month. Bush won’t be running. His popularity at the current moment will have little, if any, influence on a Presidential race that is so far off.
But, my statement was I wouldn’t look for a liberal backlash. I think you make my point for me when you say that the democrats can’t run as a liberal. I translate that to mean that anyone that is very far to the left of Bush will have a hard time getting elected.
I do hear rumblings of a bigger, badder, more conservative Cankles making her rounds, though.
Hillary? Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying. But if the Democrats get their shit together, I don’t think Republicans with viewpoints and policies substantially similar to Bush’s will win.[/quote]
The conservative movement began in 1955 and has been gasining ground consistently ever since. They have gained that ground at the expense of the liberals.
Centrist candidates are largely an illusion, more of a compromise. The US had always voted for leaders first and foremost. You have to stand for something and believe in something for others to vote for you. Being against something, as your reason for wanting to become president is shallow. The electorate usally sees thru that.
I am sure many snippy comments will follow but the fact remains that’s essentially all the Dems have run on.
Based on the “gift that keeps on giving Howard Dean” that isn’t going to change much.
[quote]Perhaps it’s the liberals who might be a little slow in picking up the fact that these three Presidents understood exactly what the public wanted and gave it to them!
Who is stupid? [/quote]
Is that a trick question? Maybe the general public?