posted on March 28, 2001 03:28:57 PM new
I want to clear this up for you:
I am not here to try to change your minds, but to rally our troops!
I create threads on AW Round Table criticizing Bush and the GOP, not because I want to slam conservative/republican readers, but because I want to amuse and educate other progressives. If you are a conservative/republican and you wish to jump into the water full of educated sharks, that's your affair. Just don't think that anything I have to say is to try to sway your own opinions.
I state this because all to often, conservatives/republicans think that their opinion is worth the effort of changing. Progressives have created this fallacy in the past where it was felt that "if only they had a little education . . . what a world of difference it could make to their lives". The efforts that were made to try to help change the ignorant opinions held by many conservatives have left them with expectations that this would always be the case: that they could make ignorant remarks and we would always be there to try to correct them. In other words, give them attention.
Sorry, the party is over.
Progressives talked themselves blue in the face, shoved the faces of conservatives into their own poo on so many occasions as learning lessons that you would think that facts would have sunk in and their minds would change due to the sheer logic of the facts. But NO! And there is not a damned thing that you can think of will ever make them want to see the light of truth.
So, forget about it!
Instead, I prefer the company of educated people: person who read, research the facts, learn and improve themselves. Conservatives/republicans and their actions are presented here to make us laugh and shake our heads in wonder at them. They want to have all of their rights taken away and become slaves instead of employees -- LET THEM! And once they've had enough, some of them will turn around and become educated in order to see their way out and will join us (the lazy ones will be doing the goose-step). I suggest that we no longer offer an outstretched helping hand to them, but a hand to shake once they make it on their own.
posted on March 28, 2001 03:39:38 PM new
Gosh, oh educated one. Please accept my poor future efforts...if you find it within the vast (yet, undisclosed) kindness of your heart. I bow before the cleanliness of your poo.
posted on March 29, 2001 01:13:27 AM new
You must be referring to the uneducated computer programmers and business leaders that give you such a toy as your new found sounding board here in AuctionWatch
posted on March 29, 2001 01:28:20 AM newjlpiece, funny you should say that. My very oldest and best friend is a computer engineer who works for Intel and he has turned into a Libertarian -- which makes Conservatives look like Pinko Commies! He gets his "education" from listening to Rush Limbaugh at work all day long. His opinions are influenced not by his doublechecking of the facts, but because Rush tells such a good story that he can't see how one-sided it is. Even his wife berates him for his stubborn desire to ignore all the facts -- he has a one-way input into his mind and that's through Rush.
Yeah, too bad he has all of that college education. Hasn't done him a bit of good, except to earn his living. But that wasn't the sort of education that I was referring to anyway. As you can see, an education in computer engineering does not equate to a fact-based outlook on society and politics.
It is this desire of conservatives to simply be told what to think from people whom they believe that they can trust and not go and doublecheck their facts that causes them to have a lack of education. People are fallible, so any smart person checks at least one other reputable source to confirm the facts and keeps an open mind on the look-out for dependable updates in order to ensure that their thinking is correct. This is why I refuse to atempt to correct conservatives and their bizaar notions of how the world works, as they wonh't listen to me if I don't have a bible in one hand and the flag in the other. I don't need props to make my points, just the facts, mamm!
posted on March 29, 2001 06:09:12 AM new
Stereotyping an entire class of people is demonstrative of the exact type of narrow minded, bull headed, ignorance you are berating. Not all conservatives are mindless, drooling idiots.
It is quite possible that a large majority of conservatives have chosen that path only after reviewing the facts. They just don't see the facts the way you do.
Education does not factor into the amount of common sense a person possesses. Clinton proved that.
posted on March 29, 2001 12:39:26 PM new
eyeguy6, lol and the truth too!
bearmom, Education does not factor into the amount of common sense a person possesses. Clinton proved that. How right you are.
I shudder about the people who don't shudder at all.
posted on May 28, 2001 02:29:52 PM new
I am a registered Republican, well-educated (in my mind) with an MBA, and a professional (Captain in the USAF).
While I may not (or maybe so) be so well-read as some of you, I'm curious why my conservative thinking makes me unworthy in your eyes. I've seen snide remarks and sarcasm dripping all around when this subject comes up. While there are folks who are conservatives, moderates, and liberals, and all areas in between, what makes your point of view so much better than mine?
You tear up a new president who has been in office for under one-half of one year. I ask of you, what are you doing to make a difference?
Was Clinton that great? No one can argue the financial boost the late 1990's reaped, can you so easily dismiss those actions by Republicans in Congress who served with President Clinton? Sure there are/will be many bone-headed ploys and actions by our current president, but many who preceded him have given Leno & Letterman more than enough material.
Borillar, because you asked in another thread why anyone could vote for Bush, as a military man, it's quite difficult for me to vote for the Gore team when his Vice-Presidental candidate tried to paint a rosy picture of the current state of the US military. Nothing could have been further from the truth. There are several Senior NCOs in my unit who waited to retire until 2001 so they would not have the name William Jefferson Clinton on their retirement paperwork.
It's unbelieveable how many of my peers are separating; my promotion opportunity to Major will be, at a minimum, 90%. This used to be 70%. The simple fact remains that tomorrow's leaders of the US military will not be the leaders you'd really like to see; those guys got out and joined the civilian life. I voted for the Republican party for what it can do for myself and my family, both my immediate and military one.
So "shake your head in wonder" all you want. I'm proud to be able to tell you my views. I do wonder however, if "progressives" would respond to a "Monica L" situation with a Republican in the same light as they did with former President Clinton.
posted on May 28, 2001 03:19:50 PM newMy very oldest and best friend is a computer engineer who works for Intel and he has turned into a Libertarian -- which makes Conservatives look like Pinko Commies!
Dang -- when did Libertarians go and change their minds on drug legalization, free speech, and abortion?
Check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz -- sure, its simplistic and paints with a broad brush -- but no more so than most o' the political threads on AW.
posted on May 28, 2001 06:39:56 PM new
Hello, Deuce, and welcome to the Round Table!
This thread was in response to another thrwad and we had been discussing the many myths held by Conservatives and slaying them with facts. So, now this thread is only to point out that I am, in fact, not trying to change anyone's mnd. I am not providing arguements to counter yours, in such a way, that you'll have no choice, but to change your mind. Nothing could be further from the truth!
I appreciate your candor and your answer. When I was in the millitary as an enlisted man (E-5), I hated it so much that a $15,000 bonus to re-enlist for four more years didn't change my determination to leave the Navy. My point being, is that good times come and go in the millitary. And if I had to do it all over again, I'd do it as an oficer, beause being an enlisted man was entirely demeaning, often filthy, and lacked human rights. The officerial class had it much better; and I learned that the Word of an Officer in the Navy only extended to other fellow officers, not to the enlisted, with whom no concideration was given for much of anything.
But if you voted for Bush because you felt that the Gore team lacked true vision on the current state of the millitary, I have two questions: 1) how is it going to get better now; and 2) knowing that Bush was a mental defective, having an IQ a little lower than Forrest Gump, and no foreign diplomacy, how secure did you feel that you might be alive to collect your retirement in a few years? Did you really think that a complete lack of foreign policy experience was making America more safe?
Tell me then, Captain, if I served under you, should I feel safe?
While I am by no means an expert on any of this, I'll attempt to reply.
1) how is it going to get better now
Immediately, it won't. We still have too few folks in the military. We've shut down an enormous number of bases and support sites. What will start to swing the pendulum is the slipping economy, which should cause fewer good officers and enlisted troops to depart for greener pastures. Also, this will be aided by the perhaps perceived notion that the military will receive higher annual cost-of-living pay increases. Note I said perceived. Under Clinton, to the best of my recollection, my highest annual COL raise was 3.6%. Raise for 2002 is scheduled to be in the neighborhood of 4.6%. Time will tell. The population of this country will have to see the military as not only a way to serve their country, as many people find this to be an acceptable invitation, but rather as a way to provide a comfortable living for themselves and their family. Ask 100 military members, and I'd estimate 90 of them feel the DoD benefits more under Republican leadership, right or wrong.
how secure did you feel that you might be alive to collect your retirement in a few years?
IMHO, You paint way too broad a picture saying that W. has absolutely no foreign skills. Foreign policy is but one area of this country's leadership. The State Department and Foreign Service officers routinely run and shape foreign policy for our government. As an example, I could say that Clinton would be a horrible choice for President as he had no military experience, and I'd argue military leadership is as important, if not more, than foreign policy. But, I'd also counter that argument by saying that is what the SecDef and Joint Chiefs of Staff get paid the big bucks for, to run the military establishment.
I have no doubts that I'll be alive to see my retirement. I've served in ICBM's; 169 24-hour alerts 100-feet underground in North-Central Montana, and have moved over to some Space areas that are mostly classified. If you served with me, you'd be quite safe, and surely we'd pass a few hours with great debate.
Our nation has great checks and blanances, and from a non-conservative view-point, gaining back the Senate was quite a windfall. I think this is what kept the last Democratic regime in check (having Republican Congress, that is).
Tell me where Wm Clinton gained his foreign policy after 150 days?
Remember of course, it is a violation of the UCMJ for a commissioned officer of the US Military to say anything that could be construed as negative regarding the current US President and his office.
I'm sure I haven't answered to your liking, but as always, it has been my pleasure.
v/r
Deuce
[spelling!]
[ edited by deuce on May 28, 2001 08:14 PM ]
posted on May 28, 2001 08:20:55 PM new
The 'state of the military' is that it's a secure job in insecure times and an unappealing job in properous times. It's no surprise that the level of discontent rose during the Clinton administration--the military saw themselves as getting the short end of a lucrative stick. It takes a certain experience to realize that a job which will remain through bad times is worth some bad time when things are good. Duece, I'd say that the friends you speak of who've left may find themselves wishing that they had not left if this economic disaster continues.
In another point you say that nothing could be further from the truth if someone paints a rosy picture of military life and go on to say "It's unbelieveable how many of my peers are separating; my promotion opportunity to Major will be, at a minimum, 90%. This used to be 70%. The simple fact remains that tomorrow's leaders of the US military will not be the leaders you'd really like to see; those guys got out and joined the civilian life".
By that statement one can only deduce that you in fact do find a rosy state of affairs in the military for if it were not as it is you would stand a much lower chance of advancement. Shouldn't you express gratitude to Bill Clinton for your own newfound prospects?
posted on May 28, 2001 08:42:47 PM new
KRS, some true statements. However, wouldn't you say this contradicts a statement you made in another thread (paraphrasing) that the economy is cyclical, and those who say the downturn began under Clinton are incorrect; it would have happened anyway.
While it's true that The 'state of the military' is that it's a secure job in insecure times and an unappealing job in properous times. , what I'm talking about is on another level. In 1993-94 the RIF (Reduction In Force) cost thousands of US officers their jobs. This, along with the many base closures from the BRAC recommendations made the state of the military, not on paper, but talking with the troops face-to-face, begin to doubt their readiness and ability to fight the mythical "2-theater war".
You may be correct in your assumption about those wishing they'd never got out.
Secondly, while my chance for promotion has indeed escalated, at what cost? I'm gone from my family a good one-third of the year, doing the same job that 3 Captains did not less than 8 months ago. Some in the media will lead you to believe that the military is "doing more with less" currently; just last week a 2-star forecasted that this ops tempo simply cannot be sustained, and we'll be doing "less with less". Whether I'm a Captain, Major, or on up, that's not a situation I look forward to.
Is Bush the answer? I don't think he is the full answer, but I do feel he (along with his advisors) has more insight into the current military situation than Gore/Lieberman did/does.
posted on May 28, 2001 09:30:27 PM new
[i]"However, wouldn't you say this contradicts a statement you made in another thread (paraphrasing) that the economy is
cyclical, and those who say the downturn began under Clinton are incorrect; it would have happened anyway"[/i].
Not at all, for you haven't referenced my entire statement which went that though the economy has ups and downs it has taken a severe down without significant ups since news of the selection. I'm not sure why you chose to bring that to this discussion, but I suppose you thought that it was clever to do so.
You are certainly talking to the wrong person if you seek sympathy for the fact that you, an air force officer, are now faced with the difficult job of doing the work of three officers since I've little inclination to agree that even doing the work of ten air force officers would be overly difficult for a competent person struggling in the work a day world outside of the military.
The following statement you posted is disrespectful and therefore a violation of the CGs.
You are certainly talking to the wrong person if you seek sympathy for the fact that you, an air force officer, are now faced with the difficult job of doing the work of three officers since I've little inclination to agree that even doing the work of ten air force officers would be overly difficult for a competent person struggling in the work a day world outside of the military.
posted on May 28, 2001 10:18:27 PM new
The military is a cushy secure job in times of peace. It always has been. No one in the military works very hard when compared with the people who work in industries in which every day on the job may be their last. It's extremely competitive and requires a high level of competence to survive in today's industry and a flight on a commuter airliner any day of the week will show any observer just how tough it is. The pressures to meet the expectations of managers is enormous, and the price is not increased work but no work at all. Very few in the military have their butts on the line much less their livelihoods. If they are extraordinarily incompetent they may be removed, but it's more likely that they will be parked somewhere where they can do little harm while still collecting their pay and benefits.
posted on May 28, 2001 10:18:41 PM new
Not disrespectful. He is simply addressing the opinion that deuce proferred as to whether the officer class in the military is overworked, underpaid, and under-resourced. He simply disagreed with deuce's assessment. There were no personal insults.
posted on May 28, 2001 10:49:08 PM new
I like to go on record as regarding the remarks krs made as nasty. I think the remarks are especially nasty considering what day today is.
posted on May 28, 2001 10:55:37 PM new
If military service is thus, what parallels might be drawn in the life and career of a politician?
We'll discount the reality that most, if not all, politicians aren't expected to die to protect their country...regardless of how peaceful it may seem currently.
Although I often am at odds with the political representitives and structure of our country, I have nothing but respect for those who choose to give their lives, sometimes literally, to the execution of the policies of those who represent us.
I would imagine most of us have family members who are/were veterans of one or more great conflicts. Would the opinions promulgated here obtain to those people as well?
As an interesting irony, there is a pretty good likelihood that the young man/woman at the controls of the commuter airline in krs' example received their training at taxpayer expense in the military. Is this a good thing?
