US Military No Longer Has a Republican Majority

There is that. "Great Commonwealth......" heh :rofl:

The Massachusetts Constitution was ratified in 1780 while the Revolutionary War was still in progress, nine years before the United States Constitution was adopted. It is the oldest written Constitution now in use in the world. Massachusetts, like Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky, is called a "Commonwealth". Commonwealths are states, but the reverse is not true. Legally, Massachusetts is a commonwealth because the term is contained in the Constitution.


PREAMBLE:The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.


We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

http://www.netstate.com/states/government/ma_government.htm


Yep good ol Mass is a Commonwealth. It has the oldest existing Constitution still in use in the world.
 
So what is the difference between "commonwealths" such as MA and VA, and "states"?

There is no difference between a commonwealth and a state in the U.S. To Locke, Hobbes, and other 17th-century writers the term "commonwealth" meant an organized political community -- what we today call a "state." Officially Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and Massachusetts are all commonwealths. When Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and Massachusetts became part of the United States, they merely took the old form of state in their title.

Today, commonwealth also means a political unit having local autonomy but voluntarily united with the U.S. These are Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.


http://bensguide.gpo.gov/support/faqs.html

These days, Commonwealth in a state's full name is mostly and acknowledgement of that state's history.
 
....

Yep good ol Mass is a Commonwealth. It has the oldest existing Constitution still in use in the world.

Thanks, and some rhetorical comments/ questions:

1. With all the references to God it is now clear why they never taught this to me when I was growing up there.
2. How did they interpret that gay marriage was proper from this?
 
Thanks, and some rhetorical comments/ questions:

1. With all the references to God it is now clear why they never taught this to me when I was growing up there.
2. How did they interpret that gay marriage was proper from this?

I know your comments/questions are rhetorical but I cant resist:

The answer to both is because the Pilgrims were replaced by Kennedys!
 
I know your comments/questions are rhetorical but I cant resist:

The answer to both is because the Pilgrims were replaced by Kennedys!
When I was a kid in the 60's the Kennedys were worshiped. Although the old man got his money the old fashioned way, by smuggling booze during prohibition, that was OK by us because booze was a God-given right. J and R were basically good boys, and they had their faults, which made them all the more likeable. And Teddy with the salute at the funeral.

Everything fell apart with the Kennedy's after that, but they still hold a spell over Mass.
 
When I was a kid in the 60's the Kennedys were worshiped. Although the old man got his money the old fashioned way, by smuggling booze during prohibition, that was OK by us because booze was a God-given right. J and R were basically good boys, and they had their faults, which made them all the more likeable. And Teddy with the salute at the funeral.

Everything fell apart with the Kennedy's after that, but they still hold a spell over Mass.

That they do.
 
The poll does not mean that military members are leaning more to the left. I think alot of members aren't affiliated with any political party (like myself), yet are strongly conservative. The number of Republicans dropping off probably just means more and more are seeing the Republicans as not being conservative enough.
 
As such, a possible explanation of how the poll was ginned.

Except these are not the results when polled last year, and those who responded to the poll tended to be slightly older and more experienced than average members of the military.
 
The poll does not mean that military members are leaning more to the left. I think alot of members aren't affiliated with any political party (like myself), yet are strongly conservative. The number of Republicans dropping off probably just means more and more are seeing the Republicans as not being conservative enough.

I agree with this somewhat, since the poll seems to show the largest shift was from people who stopped identifying themselves as Republican and shifted their affiliation to independent. I would not consider President Bush to be a conservative either. But I don't think that their political views are completely decoupled from the party affiliation. I don't think it's exactly right to say the troops have the same political stance but now have come to think the Republican party doesn't agree with their political stance. When asked to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative there was a 5% shift away from conservative and towards moderate, so there is a change in ideals happening as well.

I think that it's interesting trying to gauge the morale of the troops from this. Now 13% of troops don't think there should be any troops in Iraq, that we should pack up and leave. While most of the people who responded desire more troops, a majority think the military is stretched too thin to be effective. Only two thirds think the president has their best interest at heart, and only 23% think that Congress has their best interests at heart. Only half of the military believes that the War in Iraq is connected to the War on Terrorism.
 
The same poll to a different sampling is often used to gin the results.

If it was slightly skewed, given the anecdotal evidence in this thread, it would be skewed by showing the military is less conservative than the results of this poll indicate. Therefore, if it was skewed, the changes would be even greater than the poll shows.
 
I agree with this somewhat, since the poll seems to show the largest shift was from people who stopped identifying themselves as Republican and shifted their affiliation to independent. I would not consider President Bush to be a conservative either. But I don't think that their political views are completely decoupled from the party affiliation. I don't think it's exactly right to say the troops have the same political stance but now have come to think the Republican party doesn't agree with their political stance. When asked to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative there was a 5% shift away from conservative and towards moderate, so there is a change in ideals happening as well.

I think that it's interesting trying to gauge the morale of the troops from this. Now 13% of troops don't think there should be any troops in Iraq, that we should pack up and leave. While most of the people who responded desire more troops, a majority think the military is stretched too thin to be effective. Only two thirds think the president has their best interest at heart, and only 23% think that Congress has their best interests at heart. Only half of the military believes that the War in Iraq is connected to the War on Terrorism.

I'd like to see the percentage that thought President Clinton had our best interest at heart.:eusa_think:
 
I'd like to see the percentage that thought President Clinton had our best interest at heart.:eusa_think:

My guess is that probably wasn't very high either, but the poll only started around 4 years ago so they don't have that data, and they didn't ask about Clinton in this poll.
 
Look guys, we might as well get used to the fact that we have lost this war. I don't mean the Iraq war, I mean the war of culture here at home. Your world has changed. The far loony left is becoming of age to rule now and there really isn't much we are goping to be aboe to do about it.

Speaker of the house: Nancy Pelosi, oh my god in heaven. Can you imagine what James Madison would think of her. I'm telling you man, forget it. It isn't going to get better either. When the president of the United States has to play politics in order to send troups to an area he feels necaessary, forget it!!!!!!!!

The only satisfaction that can come from the platform of the Dem's at this point is the look of a deer in headlights a millisecond before the damn bomb that kills their ass goes off right here in the US of A. We won't however get the satisfaction of the spin that would be put on it hoiwever because if they are wrong, we die eventually.

It's sad, but it's true. Therefore my friends, I believe you would be better off to go and play a round of golf this afternoon and stop this foolishness of rational talk between yourselves as it will do NO GOOD WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!


FOUR!!!!!
 
Look guys, we might as well get used to the fact that we have lost this war. I don't mean the Iraq war, I mean the war of culture here at home. Your world has changed. The far loony left is becoming of age to rule now and there really isn't much we are goping to be aboe to do about it.

Speaker of the house: Nancy Pelosi, oh my god in heaven. Can you imagine what James Madison would think of her. I'm telling you man, forget it. It isn't going to get better either. When the president of the United States has to play politics in order to send troups to an area he feels necaessary, forget it!!!!!!!!

The only satisfaction that can come from the platform of the Dem's at this point is the look of a deer in headlights a millisecond before the damn bomb that kills their ass goes off right here in the US of A. We won't however get the satisfaction of the spin that would be put on it hoiwever because if they are wrong, we die eventually.

It's sad, but it's true. Therefore my friends, I believe you would be better off to go and play a round of golf this afternoon and stop this foolishness of rational talk between yourselves as it will do NO GOOD WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!


FOUR!!!!!

While I'm more optomistic, which perhaps I'll go into in a bit, here is someone who usually looks at the bright side, but currently is agreeing with you:

http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2007/01/10/gloomy-months-ahead/
 
While I'm more optomistic, which perhaps I'll go into in a bit, here is someone who usually looks at the bright side, but currently is agreeing with you:

http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2007/01/10/gloomy-months-ahead/

What an excellent article! The fact is though that there is a person alive today, RIGHT NOW who was recently involved in our political system who IS capable of leading this country. Zell Miller, a Conservative minded, compassionate, defense oriented and god fearing man who could but can't and won't. I am a Libertarian myself and believe that until more of that philosophy is instilled in the average person we are going to continue on a downhill spiral that results in the destruction of our country as we "knew" it. I still however believe that Zell is the closest thing to what we need to lead and it would take about 20 years. He won't live that long. A man whose conscious of ALL opinions / facts and decides based on what is truely best, not popular or bought. I can tell you right now, Zell Miller would never be "for sale". If we knew what we were really doing we would go to Young Harris, Ga and beg that man to lead us out of this shit and establish a new precedent for integrity and honesty in American government.

While Mr. Miller contends to be a Democrat it is obvious to me that he is an old school Dem which really was not that bad when their efforts were properly channelled. I mean hell, what we have done w/o FDR. A label is a label. Hell, Joe Liberman and Nancy Pelosi as well as Boxer and Rangal are all Democrats but one is very differnet from the rest.

McCain may be a Republican and I admire his military service to our country VERY much, but is too liberal to gain the support of the GOP when Dems rule the government. If we had a 60 - 40 majority in both then I could see a McCain president, it would be good I think.

Hopefully, a better choice than is currently available will step up but I think it will be McCain vs Clinton in 08 and he will slide by. He will be a one term president.
 
I thought you'd like that. He's quite a person. Poke around, you'll like his blog.
 

Forum List

Back
Top