# Anyone hear Who the Troops are Supporting?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Guess who?

Well... if you said Obama

*You're right.*

Ouch.



> Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has repeatedly claimed that he can speak for the interests of U.S. troops and best represent what they want&#8230;.
> 
> But *a new analysis by Open Secrets* finds that the U.S. military is increasingly rejecting McCain as its spokesman. Obama has received *nearly six times as much money* from soldiers deployed overseas.
> 
> Even anti-war libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who has suspended his campaign, has received more than four times as much as McCain.


So, gee golly Beav, it looks like the troops support the guy that McCain said would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. 

So question for all of you? Do the troops hate America? Are they all secret Muslims too? Are they all traitors? Can someone please explain this little ditty away?

Also, will someone please ask John McCain about this? I'm dying to hear his witty reply.

Sometimes these darn pesky little facts get in the way 

edited: adding my other "source"


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Ryan..
You should really support your "facts" by stating the source.. :wink:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

:lol:

Yep you know me... always forgetting my sources:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08 ... ve-61.html

How's this?

:thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't buy it. That sounds like the biggest fairy tale I have ever heard. No liberal is going to take a majority of the service men and women. That's why Gore tried to block the military vote in Florida. They know the military dislikes liberals. 
They dislike them because they try take away their favorite radio programs like Rush Limbaugh. They dislike them because guys like Militant Tiger who was on here said he didn't care if they were being shot at. They dislike them because they call them torturers and murderer's like Murtha.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

R y a n said:


> :lol:
> 
> Yep you know me... always forgetting my sources:
> 
> ...


Ryan,

You are too funny and too eager my friend, the worst part, I would believe that you know to wit I am eluding to. For I too know that most people are too lazy to review and then research quoted "statistics" and will accept them as fact WITHOUT researching it.

Example:

*Tomatoes are poisonous. 100% of the people that have eaten tomatoes are dead to this date.*

Ryan, this is a true and 100% factual statement, I promise you. Now hidden some where on a very slow to load page is a disclaimer that the census base for my "people" is from 1724!

Now you want to say that 134 people are a large enough database and test section to say that the military backs Hussein Obama? Let us see, 134 out of 400,000 people. Good enough!! Let us run to the presses with this!

Golly Left-wing Walley, it must be true...couple problems though bud:

1) The Federal Election Commission (www.fec.gov) doesn't show these numbers anywhere. Why is that?

2)


> Information derived from the 'Campaign Disclsure Project'


...what is this you might ask?



> "A collaboration of the UCLA School of Law..."


 This is information from your web site here.

3) Look at the Board Members and do a little research. Heck, Seabass has written song and verse singing your praises for 'research'. So either you just grabbed the first bit of info you could find and used it to "prove" your statement or you know where it is coming from and said the heck with it.

Do you work for the New York Times? (rhetorical, I know you don't) If not, show them this piece of fiction...you should be offered a job spot on!

Don't insult the masses with this garbage and you should be ashamed of yourself for even sighting this as crediable.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

And just to sum this up real quick for you:

Ryan is using the numbers from this left-wing site....

THEY HAVE 134 PEOPLE THAT GAVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUSSEIN OBAMA FROM THE MILITARY.

That is their proof and backing.

Come on already. uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

MSG Rude said:


> Ryan,
> 
> You are too funny and too eager my friend, the worst part, I would believe that you know to wit I am eluding to. For I too know that most people are too lazy to review and then research quoted "statistics" and will accept them as fact WITHOUT researching it.


Nope on the contrary. That _is precisely _why I do provide sources. Because you know as well as I do that everyone here would love to prove me wrong. Therefore I expect all my sources to be checked out. Especially when it shows a stat that is mind boggling to the viewers here. *I'm certain *that a few select people immediately went directly out to my link... heck they probably googled it, and tried to find some way of disproving it. ..... c'mon everyone... raise your hand in agreement!

But given that... even if my sources are a bit influenced ... or skewed a with a certain political tilt... wouldn't you think that no matter what... that there would be overwhelming support for McCain? Why this imbalance?

Maybe the thoughts of this polled military person give some insight:



> Navas anecdotally confirmed that soldiers are often conservative but that many are making an exception in the presidential race. "Most of my friends are conservative Republicans and they say, 'I'm voting for Barack.' McCain does not have a lock on the military vote, that's for sure," he said. "We'll complete our duty -- I'm deploying next year -- because it's a commitment I made to the nation, not to a president. But we all know that Iraq was a big mistake."
> 
> The decisions of the U.S. government affect Navas more than most Americans, he said.
> 
> "What happens politically in America affects us immediately," he said. "As soon as the surge was ordered, my tour was extended, just by a pronouncement from the president. For very few Americans can the president say something and your lives are changed."


Even with the low numbers, it does show a trend does it not? Just because it comes from what you are calling a "left wing source", doesn't the numbers speak for themselves?

How do you explain the lack of support for McCain? Are they lying?

Curious to hear your reply.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

"LOW NUMBERS"??? Come on Ryan...do better then that please.

If we (McCain supporters or Hussein dislike'rs) posted this pathetic fragment of percentage pointing out how great McCain was, you would be blasting me like I am you.

Stop it now..you really are looking foolish.

Answer this honestly as a spinster can:

Is 136 a good representation of OVER 400,000?

Real easy Ryan and you know it.

Also, it IS a democratic, left-wing web site....don't try to discredit me by laying it low like that as you know, very few will actually go see it for themselves.
Also,


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

MSG Rude said:


> "LOW NUMBERS"??? Come on Ryan...do better then that please.
> 
> If we (McCain supporters or Hussein dislike'rs) posted this pathetic fragment of percentage pointing out how great McCain was, you would be blasting me like I am you.
> 
> ...


I'm not disagreeing at all. I fully agree.

Now answer my previous question. How do you explain the numbers that are there? All soldiers have had a chance to contribute. Statistics do mean something... even if the representative sample is small.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

> Nope on the contrary. That is precisely why I do provide sources. Because you know as well as I do that everyone here would love to prove me wrong. Therefore I expect all my sources to be checked out. Especially when it shows a stat that is mind boggling to the viewers here. I'm certain that a few select people immediately went directly out to my link... heck they probably googled it, and tried to find some way of disproving it. ..... c'mon everyone... raise your hand in agreement!


Darn right and I did and so do you. How else do you do a verble chess match? Need '_Proof'_ not '_sources_'.



> But given that... even if my sources are a bit influenced ... or skewed a with a certain political tilt..


Code for you, _David, you are right about the site._ In your own non-admission.



> wouldn't you think that no matter what... that there would be overwhelming support for McCain? Why this imbalance?


Again, please understand Ryan, 136 is NOT a fair representation of over 400,000!!

Simple math my friend. Get some help on this.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Here, let me help you:

You are stating that 136 is a fair representation of over 400,000 so........

Give me 400,000 U.S.D. and I'll gladly give you "most" of it back (a 'fair' portion of it in your own mathmatical terms) of 136 U.S.D. and we'll call it even.

Sound fair? No? Really? Why not?

Stop now. Revert back to my other posts. Give us proof of why Hussein is the logical choice for the next leader of the USA and stop trying to bash McCain...

Proof Ryan, not posts.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

MSG Rude said:


> Here, let me help you:
> 
> You are stating that 136 is a fair representation of over 400,000 so........
> 
> ...


MSG, why don't you find a stat that supports your claim? Then let's compare the data that Ryan brought. We can also see how the survey was conducted to see if that influenced the results. That would be interesting.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

So seabass what exactly are you saying??? that Rude a recently retired "lifer" in the Army needs to go research what soldiers think? :lol:

I'll concede there are libs in the military and lots of blacks that will vote for Obama just because hes black, but the idea that its a Obama supporting majority is silly.

Have either you or Ryan served?? I want to make it clear I'm not criticising you if you haven't, most people today haven't.

I'm just saying if you spend your entire carreer in any place you know, really know, what the facts are about it.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> So seabass what exactly are you saying??? that Rude a recently retired "lifer" in the Army needs to go research what soldiers think? :lol:
> 
> I'll concede there are libs in the military and lots of blacks that will vote for Obama just because hes black, but the idea that its a Obama supporting majority is silly.
> 
> ...


That's just it... I'm not sure if a lifer is always the best person to ask. You and I surround ourselves with people who are like-minded... and typically have the same political leaning. No, I have not served. And I most definitely agree that a lifer has perspective that I do not. That's why any single person's opinion of a situation isn't as powerful as combining many people opinions (enter statistics). I do not think that a single soldier's perspective of what is happening in Iraq is perfectly accurate of the global perspective of the whole situation. On the other hand, I certainly do not believe a reporter over there has the perspective that a soldier does...


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> So seabass what exactly are you saying??? that Rude a recently retired "lifer" in the Army needs to go research what soldiers think? :lol:
> 
> I'll concede there are libs in the military and lots of blacks that will vote for Obama just because hes black, but the idea that its a Obama supporting majority is silly.
> 
> ...


By the way, I also have no doubt that the majority of the military will not support obama... I have a few friends and three relatives in the military, and I know there is no convincing them either! The point I wanted to make was that instead of just going back and forth, why not get a stat for yourself to make your point.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

seabass said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > So seabass what exactly are you saying??? that Rude a recently retired "lifer" in the Army needs to go research what soldiers think? :lol:
> ...


I'm not disagreeing there either. I simply pointed out that it was a very interesting site that pointed out those numbers. You would think that it would be overwhelmingly in favor of McCain...

and I was just trying to hypothesize why that might not be in this case.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

seabass said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > So seabass what exactly are you saying??? that Rude a recently retired "lifer" in the Army needs to go research what soldiers think? :lol:
> ...


 I'm glad to see this post, I knew you had good sense.

Rude doesn't have to research this topic anymore than you or I would have to about the people we work with.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> seabass said:
> 
> 
> > Bobm said:
> ...


Actually, I would not be able to speak on behalf of the people I work with regarding their political choice, even though, as an organization, we are known to be affiliated with a party in the same way the military is known to be right-leaning.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:lol: BS you have an opinion you're just to PC to admit it :beer:

Saying the military is right leaning is like saying its cold in ND in January


























me on the other hand thinks it be cold, really really cold :wink:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> :lol: BS you have an opinion you're just to PC to admit it :beer:
> 
> Saying the military is right leaning is like saying its cold in ND in January
> 
> me on the other hand thinks it be cold, really really cold :wink:


It's not cold here... honest.


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

Of the 136 military people they poled how many were black? I'm sure a left wing organization would poll equal numbers of black and white soldiers wouldn't they? :-?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I find it truly interesting how I can ask a question 12 different times and can not get a single, simple, two or three letter word answer.

Like most left-wing spinsters....it is very sad. The only reason they will not answer my question and will go into a very lengthy attention redirection, is because they know the answer and it does not support what they are spewing.

Seabass and Ryan, I think that between the two of you there should be enough grey-matter to figure this out, if you are AS smart as a 3rd grader:

Is 136 a fair representation of over 400,000?

You know what, I am going to help you seems how it has taken me two days and many, many, many posts to try and get an answer for you.

At the end of the day, go to the OPEN FORUM.

Funny how when I challenge your "supportive information" the two of you and to redirect. It is really silly and childish.

So I'll help you answer my own question.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

MSG Rude said:


> I find it truly interesting how I can ask a question 12 different times and can not get a single, simple, two or three letter word answer.
> 
> Like most left-wing spinsters....it is very sad. The only reason they will not answer my question and will go into a very lengthy attention redirection, is because they know the answer and it does not support what they are spewing.
> 
> ...


dude... first off... in my field, one of the things I do is to characterize certain genes in fungal spores ...and I would be darn lucky to get 136 for every 400,000 out there... so to answer your basic question above, it depends. If the sampling was truly random, then yes, 136 can be representative of that sort of a number. Of course, variance goes down as your sampling increases. In addition, we would have to see if the Yes answers are statistically different than the No answers. No one disagrees that a higher sample number is always better. I guess it's sort of obvious isn't it?

I repeat: If it is so obvious that the military is right wing (which I believe is true), then surely you can pull out some stats for yourself.... you could easily put this conversation to an end... especially since every single person posting on this conversation agrees with you. I guess I've asked you to do this now and I also "can not get a simple, simple, two or three letter word answer."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> dude... first off... in my field, one of the things I do is to characterize certain genes in fungal spores ...and I would be darn lucky to get 136 for every 400,000 out there...


That is apples and oranges. Your trying to confirm presence or absence it sounds like. In this case the entire 400,000 is an available resource for the desired information. You would need a lot more than 136 to build a scientific/statistical acceptable level of confidence. 
I think they did do their research much like your describing. They went through 400,000 soldiers/spores, and only found 136 of the liberal/genes they were looking for.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > dude... first off... in my field, one of the things I do is to characterize certain genes in fungal spores ...and I would be darn lucky to get 136 for every 400,000 out there...
> 
> 
> That is apples and oranges. Your trying to confirm presence or absence it sounds like. In this case the entire 400,000 is an available resource for the desired information. You would need a lot more than 136 to build a scientific/statistical acceptable level of confidence.
> I think they did do their research much like your describing. They went through 400,000 soldiers/spores, and only found 136 of the liberal/genes they were looking for.


Really?
This is also presence and absence -- yes versus no (Yes I am repub, no I am not). And no, I'm not confirming presense or absense. In fact, we have actually done a study where we take a single spore, 10 spores, 100 spores, 1000 spores... and we don't find a (statistical) difference between 1 spores and 1000 spores for the test we are giving. So, what do we do? Test 10 spores per field becuase it saves time and resources. If I had to estimate, there are several million in a field. I agree that this is no dirrectly applicable to the situation at hand, but it provides some insight to msg's basic question of 136 to 400,000.

Why would a finite sample size matter if you are using statistics? Isn't that the whole point?

You cannot say a priori that 136 is or is not an acceptable measure of 400,000. I agree that 136 is likely not enough, but you don't know that until you run the numbers...


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> I think they did do their research much like your describing. They went through 400,000 soldiers/spores, and only found 136 of the liberal/genes they were looking for.


 :withstupid:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > dude... first off... in my field, one of the things I do is to characterize certain genes in fungal spores ...and I would be darn lucky to get 136 for every 400,000 out there...
> 
> 
> That is apples and oranges. Your trying to confirm presence or absence it sounds like. In this case the entire 400,000 is an available resource for the desired information. You would need a lot more than 136 to build a scientific/statistical acceptable level of confidence.
> I think they did do their research much like your describing. They went through 400,000 soldiers/spores, and only found 136 of the liberal/genes they were looking for.


Plainsman, I re-read and I see what you are saying about "looking" through the 400,000 until we find the 136. No, what we do is take unbiased samples (10 per field) and then look to see what is there in those 10 samples. We don't keep looking until we find something. I can see why you thought I meant that.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

MSG Rude said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > I think they did do their research much like your describing. They went through 400,000 soldiers/spores, and only found 136 of the liberal/genes they were looking for.
> ...


I agree -- if that is how the study was done, then certainly this wasn't a "study" at all!


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

seabass said:


> I repeat: If it is so obvious that the military is right wing (which I believe is true), then surely you can pull out some stats for yourself.... you could easily put this conversation to an end... especially since every single person posting on this conversation agrees with you. I guess I've asked you to do this now and I also "can not get a simple, simple, two or three letter word answer."


Seabass...Earth to Seabass, come in Seabass:

I was disputing ryan's statistical basis _*HE *_quoted from his 'resources' as 'proof'. He made a statement as fact. I challenged the 'proof' he quoted to back up his statement. Do you finally understand this? For such an educated fellow as I would assume you to be, you are having an extraordinary problem understanding this very simplistic fact.

Here, let me help you out:

1) Ryan posted a statement, quoting a 'sourse' as 'fact'. (Notice he didn't post the numbers that 'proved' anything...wonder why?

2) I challenged his 'proof' that he found in the 'resource'.

3) I am not challenging with a counter number or data..get that..hello?

4) I challenged a simply mathmatic equasion. That is it, there is nothing for me to research or prove. Have I answered you question now? There is nothing for me to provide countering his post. do you finally get it? My God man, think for a second would you?

Good God...trying to point out something so blatantly obvious to any normal rational thought-processing human, to wit you are challenged, is exhausting....I think that is what you want. Like Ryan said ...the sky is not blue, it is aqua-marine...that is what you are doing isn't it?

Re-read this post man before you spout again please as I beleive I am done banging my head on my desk with you.

You know why I am banging me head Seabass........because it feels good when I stop.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

MSG Rude said:


> seabass said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat: If it is so obvious that the military is right wing (which I believe is true), then surely you can pull out some stats for yourself.... you could easily put this conversation to an end... especially since every single person posting on this conversation agrees with you. I guess I've asked you to do this now and I also "can not get a simple, simple, two or three letter word answer."
> ...


wow...  


> I challenged the 'proof' he quoted to back up his statement.


MSG, the best way to challenge someone is to find some stats that back up what you are saying. I guess it was just me. See, if I wanted to refute a hypothesis, I would look for something to back up my own... But, no, you're right. Next time you don't agree with someone MSG, just say "I'm right... because I said so!" ... and then keep saying it until everyone just gives up on the conversation... :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we all agree that most military people are conservative. That leaves little to debate. Most of us trust personal experience more than any article. I know many soldiers coming back from Iraq, including relatives. My personal experience is that somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of them are conservative.

I was at a nephews wedding this summer and one of his uncles from the other side of the family was visiting with me. He was in the military as a career. Anyway, he was in the first desert storm. I don't know much about the military is it a platoon that has about 25 men? Anyway, the group of about 25 men that he was with are all dead but him. They don't know what they got into, but all developed nerve problems. First it became hard for them to walk, then it became impossible, then they went to nursing homes, and died within the year. This fellow can just walk with a cane now. He thinks he may have a year or two before the nursing home. He is on full disability. None of these people know what they got into, but they all think there were chemical agents of mass destruction in Iraq. On their death beds they felt their cause was honorable, and this last living man will be extremely sad if Obama is ever Commander in Chief.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I think we all agree that most military people are conservative. That leaves little to debate. Most of us trust personal experience more than any article. I know many soldiers coming back from Iraq, including relatives. My personal experience is that somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of them are conservative.
> 
> I was at a nephews wedding this summer and one of his uncles from the other side of the family was visiting with me. He was in the military as a career. Anyway, he was in the first desert storm. I don't know much about the military is it a platoon that has about 25 men? Anyway, the group of about 25 men that he was with are all dead but him. They don't know what they got into, but all developed nerve problems. First it became hard for them to walk, then it became impossible, then they went to nursing homes, and died within the year. This fellow can just walk with a cane now. He thinks he may have a year or two before the nursing home. He is on full disability. None of these people know what they got into, but they all think there were chemical agents of mass destruction in Iraq. On their death beds they felt their cause was honorable, and this last living man will be extremely sad if Obama is ever Commander in Chief.


That is a sad story...

Again, the military is traditionlly conservative... no doubt. Ryan's original post _could_ have been taken as perhaps there is a new wave of democrats in the military, perhaps because they do not like how Bush handled things, etc. That's why it was potentially interesting. I wish I never would have asked, but I only thought maybe there were some more (reliable) studies out there than disproved ryans...


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> I don't know much about the military is it a platoon that has about 25 men? Anyway, the group of about 25 men that he was with are all dead but him. They don't know what they got into, but all developed nerve problems. First it became hard for them to walk, then it became impossible, then they went to nursing homes, and died within the year. This fellow can just walk with a cane now. He thinks he may have a year or two before the nursing home. He is on full disability. None of these people know what they got into, but they all think there were chemical agents of mass destruction in Iraq. On their death beds they felt their cause was honorable, and this last living man will be extremely sad if Obama is ever Commander in Chief.


Yes, a plt is about 25 men in the Infantry.

I can tell you that we (I was there the first time around too) had to take "anit-chemical tablets' twice a day. It was watched and confirmed by our 1SG or CO. At the end of the war, we were under orders to turn-in all of the tablets we had left. Some of us got a few packs out of Saudi and I still have mine. right on the back it clearly states "These are test only and not for human consumption". I will look for them when I get home and take a picture of them and post it for you all to see if I can find them again. That was 20 years ago almost.

On a side note....I am starting my process at the VA here in Fargo for screening for Gulf War Syndrome. I have degenerative disk syndrome and cartilage problems in all my joints and many other of the 'symptoms' of GWS. I don't think it is it...I think it was too many years in the Infantry but my wife wants me to make sure.

Plainsman...my heart and prayers go with the soldier.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I wish I never would have asked, but I only thought maybe there were some more (reliable) studies out there than disproved ryans...


I understand. :thumb: I think the thing is many of us have observed the military and their attitudes for 10, 20, some of us 40 years and we are so sure of where the military stands that we think it's a waste of our time to research. I am not a gambler, but I would risk something of value that the poll Ryan speaks of is skewed terribly somehow.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> we are so sure of where the military stands that we think it's a waste of our time to research. I am not a gambler, but I would risk something of value that the poll Ryan speaks of is skewed terribly somehow.


So, find a recent poll that says otherwise... prove it's a waste of time. 8) :lol:

I'm kidding. MSG, put down your keyboard.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

*seabass wrote:*


> MSG, the best way to challenge someone is to find some stats that back up what you are saying. I guess it was just me. See, if I wanted to refute a hypothesis, I would look for something to back up my own...


Seabass, does 1+1=3? Does a rational person need to provide _proof_ that it is incorrect...no



> But, no, you're right. Next time you don't agree with someone MSG, just say "I'm right... because I said so!" ... and then keep saying it until everyone just gives up on the conversation... :wink


I am right and you know it but I am done arguing with you about it. You are arguing just to argue and I am tired of it with you.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

MSG Rude said:


> Seabass, does 1+1=3? Does a rational person need to provide _proof_ that it is incorrect...no
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, you are saying that it is so obvious that the military is conservative that you equate it to as obvious as 1+1=2? Someone mentioned that military blacks might vote for Obama, just because of race... what ratio of blacks to whites are there in the military? I really don't know, but I imagine there are quite a few. How about new recruits? What ratio of new recruits are there compared to lifers? You can unequivocally say that they are majority republicans?

I'm sure the majority are republicans... but I wouldn't say it is as obvious as 1 +1=2.

I do not "know" you are right. My gut feeling tells me mostly republicans, but I do not know it.


----------



## Snowshark (Jan 31, 2007)

I think they just interviewed the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Crowd!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't know if information like you want exists seabass. I doubt good information exists either way. I would like to know the access they gained to the military to poll those 136 people.
I do know that most liberals know the military is conservative. Example: why would Al Gore want to stop the military absentee votes in Florida? Do you remember that? When they let the prisons vote, guess who they voted for during that same election? I'll give you a hint. If your in prison for murder and a political party thinks that it's the guns fault who would you vote for.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

***edited because I was upset at someone***

seabass, I am done.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

***edited because I was upset at someone***

seabass, I am done.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

MSG Rude said:


> I never said anything about new recruits (which I do know more then you as I was a recruiter, and a very successful recruiter and station commander for almost 10 years). I never said anything about conservative numbers. I never gave any evidence, proof, numbers, nothing that you keep saying I said so stop being a dink.
> 
> I said that the numbers used were too low to be a good representation of the 400,00.
> 
> ...


I just don't know why it has to come to name calling? I have no idea why you are so upset.

You "challenged" Ryan's statistics, right? Yup, I got that MSG. Loud and clear... AND THEN I challenged you to find more appropriate ones. You challenged ryan, and then I challenged you. This isn't hard to follow.

right, you never said anything about new recruits or black voters... I did. I never said you did??? but that's the point. You (and I, and others) have what could be a pre-conceived notion about the military. Perhaps there is a new wave of resentment over the war... and maybe this plays into how many democrats versus republicans there are.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

seabass said:


> You (and I, and others) have what could be a pre-conceived notion about the military.


_I_ have a "pre-conceived notion about the miltary? Ummm, hello, I just finished over 20 years "in the military". Active duty none the less. Please tell me what is "preconceived about being a subject matter expert on the subject.

Pre-conceived? PLEASE!

Seabass, you are incredulous (SP). I deleted my own posts because of what I wrote but you still had to post it long after I deleted ok...no big deal...yup, I was wrong....thats right seabass, i have no problem stating when I am wrong.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I had no idea you deleted your posts... I quoted you and was working on my response.... :huh:

:roll: pre-conceived or not, getting your own poll would have settled this whole thing. I'm not convinced that even a 40 year veteran can speak for the entire army... that's why we have stats, that's why we poll... anywhooo....


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Let's just let this one go...

It's unlikely that we can ever truly know the source of someone statistics.

I simply took statistics that I found were shocking. They were from a valid source that on it's face came from a place that espouses being independent.

Now the fact they didn't line up with one side's ideology, someone figures they just must be from the other side! Not true. Sometimes facts are just facts. Numbers are numbers. If you want to get behind the numbers you have to look at various factors, which you both have discussed.

But even getting past those factors, it is shocking simply because McCain should be steam rolling Barack in the military support department.

According to this poll he is not. Something really doesn't add up.

That all being said....

You simply cannot tell me that with all his backers, his money etc... that if the McCain camp _*could*_ present numbers that show they opposite... that they _*would*_ have rolled them out to the public IMMEDIATELY.

It doesn't appear they can.

I think we can all agree on that.

So the question becomes ... "Why can't they?"

You think they aren't trying?

That is the line of logic my mind immediately went down. It then makes this layman think... "HMMMM I wonder if Barack really does have the support of the troops in proportions similar to the campaign donation levels."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You simply cannot tell me that with all his backers, his money etc... that if the McCain camp could present numbers that show they opposite... that they would have rolled them out to the public IMMEDIATELY.


That is an interesting point in itself. As I understand Obama has millions upon millions rolling in. McCain has only a fraction of the money that Obama does. 
I heard Rush Limbaugh for about ten minutes on Monday, and again for about the same time Thursday. Only one thing stood out. He was playing a montage of media reporters. There must have been 20 or 30 people all saying " I don't understand why the polls are so close, Obama should be double digits ahead". The media can not understand why they are unable to shove their golden boy down our throats.

I think many of us are offended by the media, especially the commentator's. It's clear they think we are so stupid that we do not understand and think they need to explain it to us lesser intelligent organisms. In their arrogance they don't understand that they may actually be causing damage.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I don't know that one can say if the military is more conservative or not.

What can be said is the military knows who supports them and who doesn't. They then know how to vote, since no one would vote for someone that doesn't support you. I learned it and my son who had no real political leaning prior to joining the Marine Corps has learned it as well.

I'm surprised this went so long, usually liberals just start their rants and complaints. Then when confronted with a few facts they usually shut up and go away, or go find a new group to rant to. I've always noticed on most panels or national programs that one conservative armed with some facts can shut most liberals up quite quickly.


----------

