GAY liberals are not wishy washy!!!!

 

 

 

they are swishy swashy

#1 by Moderateman Wed, August 02, 2006 8:46 PM [Moderateman] GAY liberals are not wishy washy!!!! they are swishy swashy

I hate to admit it but I'm still laughing at this one.

The truly wealthy would just buy their way out of the draft anyway, and we'd end up with more poor people. Except, now these poor people didn't want to be in the armed forces. Anyway, if you want richer people in the armed forces, why not just pass a law increasing their pay?

What a difference 2 generations make.  40+ years ago, A democrat passed the largest (to then) tax cut back then.  Now they are alergic to them.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, August 03, 2006 What a difference 2 generations make. 40+ years ago, A democrat passed the largest (to then) tax cut back then. Now they are alergic to them.

 

JFK....  The last Democrat President worth a damn. Besides anyman that boinked marilyn Monroe is good.

Forty years ago conservatives were for the draft, today they are not. Hmmm, I guess that makes them wishy-washy, as well. This whole conservative "wishy-washy" thing is just plan stupid. Reasonable people, informed by knowledge and experience, should change their minds. The fact that they don't tends to make them conservative by definition. Be well.

Forty years ago conservatives were for the draft, today they are not. Hmmm, I guess that makes them wishy-washy, as well.

I dont remember the conservatives pushing it 40 years ago.  As the democrats ran everything, seems if THEY were against it, it would have ended BEFORE a conservative president did.

Forty years ago conservatives were for the draft, today they are not. Hmmm, I guess that makes them wishy-washy, as well. This whole conservative "wishy-washy" thing is just plan stupid. Reasonable people, informed by knowledge and experience, should change their minds. The fact that they don't tends to make them conservative by definition. Be well.

I am working on a list, sodaiho. It's not just one hypocrisy; it's HUINDREDS. No, I'm not talking about them being wishy washy because they've switched stands on the draft, but because their reasons for SUPPORTING a draft in 2006 are the same reasons they OPPOSED a draft in 1967. Has something changed that would affect how soldiers are drafted that I'm unaware of, sodaiho?

Hello Gid,

I question your assumption that a change of mind is hypocrasy. I wonder if as we age and wisen whether change of mind is not an essential in the process. My sense however, is that antiwar folks, myself included, have been relatively consistent. We oppose armed conflict. As I recall the sixties, people were opposed to the draft mostly because they felt that without the draft the military would not so easily become involved in warfarte. History proves this to be an incorrect assumption. I only tongue-in-cheek support a draft as such a thing would scare the hell out of people who seem willing to send volunteers to war at the drop of a pin and for mostly all the wrong reasons.

Smart people are, by definition "wishy washy," as we tend to use information rather than ideology to make decisions. So, another word for wishy-washy is thoughtful.

Be well.

To: Sodaiho

The point Gideon is making is not that 'liberals' have changed their minds, but just the opposite. The make exactly the same argument,on the basis of the same justication, but in reverse. Had they changed their minds they would either a) make a different point about the issue or change the ground on which they hold their opinion.

Your inability to see the difference gives me cause to seriously doubt the air of wisdom you affect. But then, perhaps I haven't 'wisened' enough yet.

I question your assumption that a change of mind is hypocrasy.

Sod,

It's not just a change of mind. Read closely. The excuses are the same.

Why is it that in 1967 a draft CAUSES the poor people to pay the price for war, when in 2006, the draft will PREVENT the poor people from paying the price for the war? What has fundamentally changed about the nature of the draft in those intervening 39 years?

The fact that you don't SEE this is making my point FAR better than I ever could!

Not so much wishy-washy as adaptive. I see it as the wealthy who gradually changed things. They went from using their wealth and influence to have their children excused from the draft, to using their wealth and influence to make compensation for an all volunteer army attractive enough so that the poorest of the poor would find a paid stint in the army better than a futile existence in poverty. Liberals adapted their position to match the new circumstances. In the end the reason remains the same - a fairer approach to a call to service.

They went from using their wealth and influence to have their children excused from the draft, to using their wealth and influence to make compensation for an all volunteer army attractive enough so that the poorest of the poor would find a paid stint in the army better than a futile existence in poverty.

That is absolute BS, uBoB, and if you looked into the numbers, you would know that. The median income of the households from which our enlisted soliders serve is ABOVE the national median income; this would indicate several wealthy people CAN and DO choose to enlist.

Sorry Gideon, I thought that when you wrote in your original post:

Ok, this will be brief but I don't need much time to prove my point:

That we all could take the same liberty in our responses.

I'll take your advice and look into the numbers.

Sorry Gideon, I thought that when you wrote in your original post: Ok, this will be brief but I don't need much time to prove my point: That we all could take the same liberty in our responses.

smug response noted and point taken...lol!

While you have offered a better excuse than many for the liberal rationale RE: the draft, I'd think any form of indentured servitude would kind of go against the principles of anyone who calls themselves "liberal" (after all, that is, essentially, exactly what a draft is).

This is actually only the beginning of a number of inconsistencies I see among many self described "liberals", particularly the ones currently running the DNC. It may or may not fit the individual liberal, but if it doesn't, I'd be rushing to take back your party before the wackos destroy it!