| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
11-26-2006, 03:47 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Plymouth, Ma
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Actually, Rangel's statemes (as he's made them) seem to be supported by Pentagon statistics and non-partisan research done over the past few years.
- Nearly 1/2 of new recruits came from lower-middle-class to poor households
- Nearly 2/3 of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median
- All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan
Source: Washington Post
-spence
|
Thats interesting when compared to these DOD statistics.
The overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq — nearly 74 percent — have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 03:50 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,501
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stripersnipr
Thats interesting when compared to these DOD statistics.
The overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq — nearly 74 percent — have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.
|
You're comparing different stats. Who ever said the poorer communities were minority?
Additionally you'd need to study where the various minority groups served and where the deaths were occuring for it to have much meaning.
-spence
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 04:06 PM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Plymouth, Ma
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You're comparing different stats. Who ever said the poorer communities were minority?
Additionally you'd need to study where the various minority groups served and where the deaths were occuring for it to have much meaning.
-spence
|
My guess is the, ethnicity and number of dead will remain constant with the current statistic even after the location of death data has been extrapolated and interjected to the statistic formula.
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 04:30 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,501
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stripersnipr
My guess is the, ethnicity and number of dead will remain constant with the current statistic even after the location of death data has been extrapolated and interjected to the statistic formula.
|
And in context with Rangel's Bill, it would still be moot
-spence
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 05:05 PM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Plymouth, Ma
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
And in context with Rangel's Bill, it would still be moot
-spence
|
These are some of the REAL issues and consequences relative to Rangles proposal. They are not moot.
1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.
2) Diluting the strongest and most efficient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.
3) Lowering of current Military admission standards to allow quota fulfillment.
4) Unprecedented financial (Tax) implications of supporting a military draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).
5) Conscientious Objective Deferals for those who opppose fighting in Wars.
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 05:53 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,501
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stripersnipr
These are some of the REAL issues and consequences relative to Rangles proposal. They are not moot.
|
Woa, I just had a deja vu
Quote:
1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.
2) Diluting the strongest and most efficient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.
3) Lowering of current Military admission standards to allow quota fulfillment.
4) Unprecedented financial (Tax) implications of supporting a military draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).
5) Conscientious Objective Deferals for those who opppose fighting in Wars.
|
Well, I don't believe he's ever called for any of that. Rangel's bill isn't even for a "military" draft alone, but also to draft people into public service that will aid us in the War on Terror. For many this could mean nothing more than some part time work instead of watching 8 hours of mindless football on Sundays
Have you even read his Bill?
-spence
Last edited by spence; 11-26-2006 at 06:02 PM..
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 06:10 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Plymouth, Ma
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Woa, I just had a deja vu
Well, I don't believe he's ever called for any of that. Rangel's bill isn't even for a "military" draft, but rather to draft people into public service that will aid us in the War on Terror. For many this could mean nothing more than some part time work instead of watching 8 hours of mindless football on Sundays
Have you even read his Bill?
-spence
|
Wow, Even after reading the bill I was left with the clear impression it called for a Miltary Draft. 
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 06:13 PM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 3,781
|
Lots of poor caucasians in this country
|
Good health and family
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.
|
| |