http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.main/index.html

Bwahahaha.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.main/index.html

Bwahahaha.

:burn:
:curse:
:moon:
:eek:

ARGH!

:burn:
ARGH!

Haha, enjoy your stay in Canada Pan, :moon: :flipbg:

Whohoo! 2 thumbs up for George W. Bush!! :texla:

In my mind, Kerry gets substantial credit for doing so, rather than dragging things out waiting for provisional vote counts, etc. A bit of certainty the day after the election is a nice change over four years ago.

The most significant thing shown by this election, IMO, is the fairly deep cultural divide in this country. I don't really see this divide going away or being bridged anytime soon.

Another interesting result (and perhaps a sign of the above) is the funding of embryonic stem cell research in California. It is as if Californian voters (and Schwarzenegger, too) flipped their middle finger at the Bush administration and said, "We don't care what you think about embryonic stem-cell research. If you won't fund it, we will." I expect that California will reap the financial benefit of that research someday.

I believe it was a CNN article that said the country is still a divided one, but a division that's more Republican as of Election day 2004. Bush won the popular vote as well as the (theoretical) electoral - which means, by golly, people like him.

As for the stem cell issue, I think you read too much into that, Scirocco. Bush limited Federal funding, but did nothing to stop funding completely. As for CA reaping the benefits, we'll see. CA flip flops as much as any other state, and what may be a big "pro" for Arnie this year, may hurt him come re-election time.

In addition, CA's very split itself - take a look at CNN's breakdown by county (I gotta admit, I'm impressed with CNN's details this year, even if their exit polls were off): http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/index.html

While Kerry got a strong win in CA, it's probably not as wide open as many would have first believed.

Kerry
5,427,055 55% 55
Bush
(Incumbent)
4,403,495 44%

In my mind, Kerry gets substantial credit for doing so, rather than dragging things out waiting for provisional vote counts, etc. A bit of certainty the day after the election is a nice change over four years ago.


Everybody and their brother had already awarded Bush the win, but Kerry just didn't acknowledge it. Even the 2 democratic senators from Ohio told him to concede sometime during the night (heard that on the news this morning). So he did drag it out a bit :)

Kerry shouldn't get any praise for conceding, he's just maintaining the same character he portrayed during the entire campaign trail - a flip flopper. Didn't Kerry just say earlier this morning that he wouldn't quit until all votes were counted?

Guess he didn't want to pull a Gore, instead he kept pulling a Kerry.

However, judging from the reactions from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.world.reaction/index.html">the world</a> and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/03/markets/election_react/index.htm?cnn=yes">Wall Street</a>, looks like they got who they wanted.

Hmmm, I can't seem to log into Michael Moore's message forums and MoveOn.org's forums have been closed as well. Wait so are Democratic Underground. OMG! It's a conspiracy! They don't want us Republicans posting on their message boards telling them to wake up and smell the coffee and another 4 more years of President George W. Bush! Hahaha.

However, judging from the reactions from the world and Wall Street, looks like they got who they wanted.

Wall street almost always wants the incumbent. Better the devil you know..etc.

I think Wall street is more excited that the Election seems to be resolved quickly.

Joy. Let the divisiveness continue.

You hate me, I hate you, who needs terrorists to rip this country apart, we seem to be doing a fine job of it internally.

I'll concede to the gloating, you all won, its only right and proper to do a superior dance.

I believe it was a CNN article that said the country is still a divided one, but a division that's more Republican as of Election day 2004. Bush won the popular vote as well as the (theoretical) electoral - which means, by golly, people like him.


But I don't think Bush won because people like him. A lot of people were like my sister who didn't like him, but they also didn't like Kerry. It was more like vote for the devil you know.

Cool the guy controls the biggest power in the world but has no idea about the world only his own country gets back in !


Tils

But I don't think Bush won because people like him. A lot of people were like my sister who didn't like him, but they also didn't like Kerry. It was more like vote for the devil you know

Ummm...Panamah, I have yet to see anyone on this board(yourself included) give any reason to vote for Kerry....just reasons NOT to vote for Bush. Most of my Democratic friends were the same way. I have yet to have a Kerry supporter actually tell me what it is about kerry they voted for other than "He's not Bush."

Joy. Let the divisiveness continue.

You hate me, I hate you, who needs terrorists to rip this country apart, we seem to be doing a fine job of it internally.

*shrug* I have yet to see anyone other than Democrats preaching hate. Bush seemed to run on a platform of what he did and what he plans to do, Kerry ran on a platform of what Bush did wrong.

I see that some people need to learn how to win as gracefully as Kerry lost. And I say this as an independent libertarian who often views the antics of both parties with disgust....

Highest voter turn out since 1968, most votes ever won in an election.
1% or 2% I can see being like your sister - people who voted for "the lesser of two evils" or the "devil you know," but I don't think you can write off hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people in the same way.

Hard core Democrats are coming out of their "Clinton-high" and figuring out that America is finally turning back to a more conservative state. Shoving hyper-radical candidates like Kerry is not going to win their party back into office. What did the Democrats lose this year? At least four seats in the House of Reps, 3 in the Senate including the Senate Minority Leader. Republicans hold the majority in the whole of Congress and the Gubernatorial areas as well. Not to mention the fact that GWB is (99%) going to be able to replace Rehnquist in the Supreme Court.

This election day wasn't just about GWB, he's just the most visible figure - Democrats lost big this term.

Ummm...Panamah, I have yet to see anyone on this board(yourself included) give any reason to vote for Kerry....just reasons NOT to vote for Bush. Most of my Democratic friends were the same way. I have yet to have a Kerry supporter actually tell me what it is about kerry they voted for other than "He's not Bush."


I sure I posted at least a few of the reasons why I was voting for Kerry. One of the biggest on my list was I liked his health care plan much better than Bushs. That was actually something of a litmus test for me, having reached an age where its almost impossible for me to purchase health care, no matter how much money I'm willing to spend, simply because no one will insure you if you're in middle-aged, even if you're in great health. Bushes plan doesn't do anything to address the cherry-picking that health insurers do.

I liked Kerry's plan to work with your traditional allies to try to bring peace and stability to Iraq. I believe Kerry would have been much better liked by Europeans and they'd be more willing to help us out if he were in charge. I liked what he said about foreign policy in general.

I also liked that he said he would close the tax loop hole that companies are exploiting when they off-shore.

I like that he would leave gay marriage to the states to decide.

John Kerry had a slightly tougher stance on illegal immigration during the debates. He said he *would* use troops to protect the borders.

I liked that Kerry would leave his religious views out of politics.

Those are the ones off the top of my head. There were a number of things in the debate where they each offered their idealogy or plans and I generally liked Kerry's best. But probably most important is that Kerry's idealogy is much closer to my own. And I'm scared that Rumsfeld and Chaney are going to get us in more wars and it might be against a country that can really defend themselves.

Its done, now if only we could be good winners/losers and not rub it in or cry conspiracy. Instead, maybe, we could work to make this a better world to live in.

Yea, like that will happen.

*shrug* I have yet to see anyone other than Democrats preaching hate. Bush seemed to run on a platform of what he did and what he plans to do, Kerry ran on a platform of what Bush did wrong.

Hate was preached by both sides equally. This being spoken by a registered "unaffiliated" (used to be "independent", but then an Independent party sprung up so now I am considered Unaffiliated).

Here's some nice words that might ring a bell "flip flopper", "swiftboat veterans", "unearned purple heart", "soft on terrorists" etc.

Both sides were equally as venomous to the other. Yet more evidence of the rift in America. This rift will not be closed by continuing to have very close elections run by candidates who prefer to sling insults at each other and at each other's supporters.

Ross Perot did one thing right: he got people talking about the important issues, rather than just slinging mud. He was a crackpot, I won't argue that, but when he really started in with his pie charts and numbers, interestingly, the mudslinging dropped considerably, and plans were discussed more earnestly about what was going to be done.

Perhaps what we need next election is another crackpot who actually gets people talking about issues instead of what happened 30 or 40 years ago, or flinging insults at each other. Quite frankly, I heard much less about what either side planned to do than I heard about how evil the other side was.

edited to add: /agree Bap. What's done is done. All sides would do well to show some grace. There is nothing so pathetic as a poor loser, unless it is a poor winner.

Ol' Ross who thought he was abducted by Aliens or something odd like that.
And Admiral Stockdale... now there's VP who gives you a good reason to keep the Pres alive...

Wasn't Nader supposed to be this "catalyst" that was supposed to keep the candidates on target during debates?

I see that some people need to learn how to win as gracefully as Kerry lost. And I say this as an independent libertarian who often views the antics of both parties with disgust....

Let the winners have our day of fun, revelry and yes, gloating. Tomorrow we can be more gracious and respectful to the losing party. But for now. . .

Who's in dee White House?
Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush
Who's in dee White House?
Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, BUSH!
:band: :texla: :dance:

I stand corrected Panamah.

I can honestly say that you are the first Kerry supporter to actually give me things Kerry stood for as a reason to vote for him.

I disagree with you that Kerry actually had a plan to accomplish the promises he made, but I respect your opinion.

Joy. Let the divisiveness continue.

You hate me, I hate you, who needs terrorists to rip this country apart, we seem to be doing a fine job of it internally.

Heh, well said. Last night I was annoyed by the people saying they were going to leave the country if Bush one. Today I'm annoyed by the Bush gloaters. Sometimes the people picking sides seem more like sports fans than voters. :rolleyes:

Haha, enjoy your stay in Canada Pan, :moon: :flipbg:

Whohoo! 2 thumbs up for George W. Bush!! :texla:


Just hope they don't come for you after they get done with the Muslims and Gays, Truid.

Everybody and their brother had already awarded Bush the win, but Kerry just didn't acknowledge it. Even the 2 democratic senators from Ohio told him to concede sometime during the night (heard that on the news this morning). So he did drag it out a bit :)


Except that Ohio hasn't had a Democratic senator since Glenn retired.

Well when Bush is looking for people to goto Iraq, I'll make sure that Truid is the first in line.

Highest voter turn out since 1968, most votes ever won in an election.
1% or 2% I can see being like your sister - people who voted for "the lesser of two evils" or the "devil you know," but I don't think you can write off hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people in the same way.

Hard core Democrats are coming out of their "Clinton-high" and figuring out that America is finally turning back to a more conservative state. Shoving hyper-radical candidates like Kerry is not going to win their party back into office. What did the Democrats lose this year? At least four seats in the House of Reps, 3 in the Senate including the Senate Minority Leader. Republicans hold the majority in the whole of Congress and the Gubernatorial areas as well. Not to mention the fact that GWB is (99%) going to be able to replace Rehnquist in the Supreme Court.

This election day wasn't just about GWB, he's just the most visible figure - Democrats lost big this term.

Correct, in effect, the United States isn't even a two party state anymore. Now we have a one party state. Welcome to the Oligarchy. Papers please. Muslims and Gays please step out of the line.

Just hope they don't come for you after they get done with the Muslims and Gays, Truid.

Why would they come after me Aidon? For being a patriotic Republican? Only in your sick little world would that happen. :lol:

BTW, being the anti-arab that you are, what exactly have we "done" to "the Muslims and Gays", exactly?

Well when Bush is looking for people to goto Iraq, I'll make sure that Truid is the first in line.

I'd gladly serve my country. However, Bush has clearly stated there would be NO DRAFT! Also, the volunteer military that we currently have works just fine. No need to futz things up with a draft. Sounds like you've been listening to that idiot Michael Boore again.

Why would they come after me Aidon? For being a patriotic Republican? Only in your sick little world would that happen. :lol:

BTW, being the anti-arab that you are, what exactly have we "done" to "the Muslims and Gays", exactly?

You're right. I'm very anti-arab. I don't like arabs. They don't like Jews.

But, as a Jew, I support their rights as citizens in this nation to live without being villified and treated as second class citizens here. Because frankly, its always someone. If its not the blacks, the asians, or Jews, its muslims or Gays, since its politically acceptable to oppress those now.

At least in an Arab country I know I'm not welcome...and don't have to worry if the tides of public opinion will turn on me next, because I'm not of the white christian heterosexual majority.

Also, the volunteer military that we currently have works just fine.

You may not be aware that the military right now has a pretty bad shortage of personnel. They are not allowing people to leave the military on their supposed discharge date, but requiring them to stay in the service. See, once you sign up, if they feel they need you, there is a period of time (up to 7 years, depedning on your age and training) during which they can recall you, and you have no legal say in the matter.

This is happening now. It hasn't gotten much press, but it is happening, because there are so many people who are very happy to send someone else to get shot at, but who don't seem to want to be shot at themselves.

6 month deployments are turning into 18 month deployments. The national guard folks are getting screwed majorly.

The system isn't working because people don't seem to want to volunteer knowing they'll be headed off to a war zone. Apparently the zeal of "get the Iraqi's" doesn't quite go all the way to their core.

Enlistments are down, so the way they keep the numbers up is to force people to stay in service when they should have been out already.

I doubt Bush is so stupid as to institute the draft again.

If you would gladly serve your country, why aren't you in the military now? They need the people.

I'd gladly serve my country. However, Bush has clearly stated there would be NO DRAFT! Also, the volunteer military that we currently have works just fine. No need to futz things up with a draft. Sounds like you've been listening to that idiot Michael Boore again.

Bush hasn't built confidence in my mind that he makes the best judgments. Not only that but Candidates aren't known to tell the truth all the time, especially while campaigning. You know his ratings would have sky rocketed if Bush had of said, "Elect me and I'll send you or your family to war!" I have no clue what gave you the idea that the volunteer military is working just fine. Maybe you don't have friends and family over there right now on their 3rd extended leave?

does anyone believe that our national guard is as qualified to go to war as our other branches of military services are? i am not trying to disparage our national guard service men, but they were not suppose to be trained to fight an extended war by themselves. and maybe we arent being served well by sending them into harms way, unprepared.

do i blame those men and women for that, heck know...i blame the leader who needs to use them for an action that is un winable and used only for political and financial reasons. i do pray they come home safely, but when will that be?

The national guard is not as well trained as regular military. That is part of the reason behind the problems with the prison guards who are being court martialed (they were guard people).

The purpose of the national guard was not to go fight overseas. They were to guard the nation (funny how the name fits so well) and act as back ups in the advent that a very large war was to take place where we needed trained people because our current military had been decimated for manpower.

Of course, the original intent and the current usage aren't the same. Much like the social security funding.

I'm not sure why they decided to mobilize the national guard for this. I'm also not sure why Oregon's national guard units were called up in much greater proportions than other states, like, say, Texas.

I feel for the guard people. They have left their jobs, many have been gone MUCH longer than their supposed length of service. Who knows what they'll be facing when they get back. Although their employers are required to give them jobs, they are not required to give them their old job back or their old pay. And around here, with layoffs still happening, and unemployment still sky high, it could be very very bad for them to come home.

The purpose of the national guard was not to go fight overseas. They were to guard the nation (funny how the name fits so well) and act as back ups in the advent that a very large war was to take place where we needed trained people because our current military had been decimated for manpower.
Why exactly does to "guard the nation" have to equate to "must keep feet on US soil"? If you think that the National Guard was meant only for the protection of US interests on US soil, the <a href="http://www.ngb.army.mil/about/">National Guard homepage</a> seems to disagree with you:

<i>Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while <b>providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.</b></i>

Comments about the U.S. National Guard being used overseas brought back memories of North American history.

The U.S. attacked Canada (British North America) in the War of 1812. There were numerous battles, some won by each side. In the end, the borders stayed the same.

One particular conflict was The Battle of Queenston Heights. On October 13, 1812, American militia, under the command of U.S. Colonel Solomon Van Rensselaer, crossed the Niagara River near Lewiston to attack British forces on the Canadian side. There were 4500 American militia at Lewiston.

The American successfully made landfall and killed the British commander Brock. Then things turned bad, and many Americans were killed, captured or forced to flee down the sheer cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment and back across the treacherous waters of the Niagara Gorge.

Despite the setback, the Americans still enjoyed superior numbers. The American commander planned another attack. The remaining militia announced that they were staying put. They had signed up to defend the United States, not to fight on foreign soil. Their commanders begged and berated them, but to no avail.

Winter came, and the militia went home.

The national guard is not as well trained as regular military. That is part of the reason behind the problems with the prison guards who are being court martialed (they were guard people).

Since many National Guard members were in the regular military services during the Clinton administration who do we have to blame for that? Their training might not be as absolutely up to date as a regular grunt, but its not like any of them forgot all their training. Not to mention you cant point to a single instance and claim its indicative of an entire million+ person organization. If there werent problems JAG and lawyers and prisons would not exist.

The purpose of the national guard was not to go fight overseas. They were to guard the nation (funny how the name fits so well) and act as back ups in the advent that a very large war was to take place where we needed trained people because our current military had been decimated for manpower.

National Guard = Guard the Nation? So does that mean US Coast Guard = Guards US Coast? Sorry, but it doesnt work that way. Just as the Coast Guard has been sent overseas in almost every major US war since its inception, so too has the National Guard been employed as round outs to the US military. They are not some sort of state milita these days. The National Guard are actual round outs to combat brigades under the current (and I'm talking the last 20 or so years) plan.

They are not just backups. The National Guard is supposed to function as brigade roundouts. Many of the US army and Air Forces support battalions are National Guard units. Heck, if the National Guard were the Weekend Warriors people used to call them, then Congress would not spend the millions to send them to Camp Irwin for OpFor training.

Of course, the original intent and the current usage aren't the same. Much like the social security funding.

Or Affirmative Action.

I'm not sure why they decided to mobilize the national guard for this. I'm also not sure why Oregon's national guard units were called up in much greater proportions than other states, like, say, Texas.

Because National Guard units are not just fighting units. Many are support battalions providing medical, suppy, logistics, mid-air refueling, mail services, and many many other things. So some states are hit harder than others since their Guard units are specialized for certain things. Example: We are no longer fighting a hot war in Iraq, therefore combat oriented units are not as necessary as support units. Hence if your National Guard unit is setup as a tank brigade your much less useful than one setup as a hospital unit. And which, at this point, do you think they'll call up? Another tank unit that'll just be a target, or a supply unit that can bring up food and water to starving Iraqi's?

I feel for the guard people. They have left their jobs, many have been gone MUCH longer than their supposed length of service. Who knows what they'll be facing when they get back. Although their employers are required to give them jobs, they are not required to give them their old job back or their old pay. And around here, with layoffs still happening, and unemployment still sky high, it could be very very bad for them to come home.

I feel for them too. But the fact is that when they left the regular military service, they choose to remain in the National Guard. No one was twisting their fingers and arms to force them to go into the Guard. Just as they volunteered for regular military service, they volunteered to remain in the Guard after they left. Military service brings with it certain responsibilities and obligations which are not necessarily equivilent to the rewards and enumerations it brings. It isnt fair. But its not like they didnt know what they could be getting into. And if they didnt, then honestly I have about as much sympathy for them as those in Florida who build a 1 million dollar beach house and then cry when a hurricane takes it out.

And it could be bad when they get back. But it might not be either. Fear mongering wont get us anywhere. And these units wont simply pop back here all at once, they'll be slowly rotated back and re-integrated back in over months. The economy is improving and will be able to reincorporate them back.

Oh yeah, and on the draft. Thats an idea that'll never fly. We'll simply pull out of Iraq before that happens. The bottom line is that the US army today is one of professional and highly trained soldiers. It will never go back to a draft short of Russia invading us or something catastrophic like that. Something as relatively minor as Iraq isnt going to bring it back.

You dont just take a kid off the street, hand him an M-16, and expect him to be able to handle it. It takes years to build a US combat soldier of today. You talked about the prison scandal and then think we'd go back to a draft? Things like that would be happening left and right with a draft. Just one of many reasons we'll never see it.

Instead of thinking negatively due to a political view, wouldnt it be better to think positively? Many of us have been Bitter Druids so long against SoE it makes me wonder if it hasnt become a general phenomenon.

:)

The most significant thing shown by this election, IMO, is the fairly deep cultural divide in this country. I don't really see this divide going away or being bridged anytime soon.

Come on. That statement makes it sound like the divide is a recent thing. The US has been divided politically and culturally for its entire existance. If it werent, the Civil War never would have happened.

The party names have changed, some have come and gone, but we have always been a divided country. In fact, we're at our BEST when divided. Unlike many other countries, our divisions are our strength. They keep us moving in the right direction generally instead of allowing a single group to dominate.

The political and cultural divisions can often get in the way, but in the long term they're permanent loyal opposition. They keep the conservatives from being too conservative, and the liberals from being too liberal. Political divisions can be taken too far sometimes, but in the end horse trading is a way of life on Capital Hill.

In fact, thats one reason Kerry conceeded so quickly. He knew he couldnt win, but that he couldnt just come out and say it quickly without losing some of the political capital he built up. And I respect that in him. He did show strength in holding out, but showed he wasnt willing to ride a burning plane down in flames. It can be a fine line to tread, but he did it well. I dont like Kerry personally, but I respect that he knew when to call it quits.

And likewise, President Bush knows he'll be dealing with Kerry and the other democrats for the next 4 years. So you didnt see him rushing to claim victory, or pressuring Kerry to concede. Nor was his victory speech one of gloating, though it was one of celebration.

Neither side expects nor would probably even want to totally heal the divides between the nation. Each side serves a vital purpose. The conservatives exist because in the end because a majority of the country is conservative to one degree or another. The liberals exist to keep the conservatives honest. And so the vast majority of us can live in the middle.

I welcome the divide. Not to mention, the divide helped to draw out the most people for any vote. I'm proud of both democrats and republicans for being able to do that. They got people involved. And that can never be a bad thing.

But the fact is that when they left the regular military service, they choose to remain in the National Guard.

Just as point of fact, not every member of the national guard were in the regular military first. Many of them ONLY joined the national guard, with no prior military experience.

Just as point of fact, not every member of the national guard were in the regular military first. Many of them ONLY joined the national guard, with no prior military experience.I suppose no one ever told them that they might get deployeed..lol....it was all a big secret that they are just now finding out about?

Sorry no. They knew what they were signing up for...or at least they should have. You are VERY thoroughly educated at MEPS(Military Entrance Processing Station) before you take that oath.

The national guard gets the same basic training as the regulars, They drill 1 weekend a month(during which they are paid for 4 days, not 2) and 2 weeks a year. They also get an orientation from anywhere from days to months before they are rotated out usually.

I was stationed at FT Irwin during the first gulf war and we (the OPFOR) retrained EVERY reserve unit that rotated over for a minimum of 30 days. Units that didn't pass got recycled and did it again.

I don't know what the current system is but I doubt its much different.

I suppose no one ever told them that they might get deployeed? The national guard gets the same basic training as the regulars, 1 weekend a month(during which they are paid for 4 days, not 2) and 2 weeks a year. They also get an orientation from anywhere from days to months before they are rotated out usually.

I was stationed at FT Irwin during the first gulf war and we (the OPFOR) retrained EVERY reserve unit that rotated over for a minimum of 30 days. Units that didn't pass got recycled and did it again.

I don't know what the current system is but I doubt its much different.

Then why call it the national guard? And I'm willing to bet the recruiters didn't tell them they were likely to get deployed oversees.

The vast majority of Americans view the National Guard as the people called up to protect the nation in case of attack, help with disaster areas, and occasionally put down a riot that's grown out of control.

Then why call it the national guard? And I'm willing to bet the recruiters didn't tell them they were likely to get deployed oversees.

The vast majority of Americans view the National Guard as the people called up to protect the nation in case of attack, help with disaster areas, and occasionally put down a riot that's grown out of control.That is their peacetime mission but its not their ONLY mission.

The national guard has a dual role...here is a cut/past from the Guard FAQ (http://www.ngb.army.mil/faq/)


More importantly, the National Guard maintains a unique "dual status" - both State and Federal - that no other service or component has. This dual status is rooted in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that "Congress shall have the power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve.
Notice that the requirement for training the Guard falls upon the states.

In general, the national guard receives pretty much the same benefits as the Reserves and usually a few extra perks such as free tuition in state universities, etc.


EDIT:

As for the recruiters, there are like any other salesmen. The guy I bought my car from didn't tell me about excise tax. I figured that part out myself when I went to register it.

When I left active duty I considered joining the Guard. I did some investigating and decided I didn't want to be under the control of a state governor and I went reserves.

It's your life, not the recruiters. It's up to YOU to do the research before you sign the papers and take the oath.

Complaining because you didn't is like taking a new job and being upset at the company when you find out there is no 401k plan. If you didn't ask the question you cant get upset about the answer.

I guess the vast majority of Americans would be wrong then.

<a href="http://www.arng.army.mil/about_us/protecting_our_world.asp">References are cool</a>.
<b>Protecting Our World, Our Federal Mission </b>

During peacetime each state National Guard answers to the leadership in the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status. While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President.

Even when not federalized, the Army National Guard has a federal obligation (or mission.) That mission is to maintain properly trained and equipped units, available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as otherwise needed.

The Army National Guard is a partner with the Active Army and the Army Reserves in fulfilling the country's military needs. In fiscal year 2001, Army Guard soldiers pulled duty in more than 80 countries in a wide variety of operations including peacekeeping, stabilization, security, nation building, etc. Below are a few examples of how the Army National Guard is fulfilling its federal mission.

<b>Guard Training</b>

Typically, National Guard members are required to attend one drill weekend each month and one annual training period (usually 2 weeks in the summer) each year. Weekend drills usually consist of one Saturday and Sunday each month, but occasionally include reporting for duty on Friday night. Initially, all non-prior service personnel are required to attend initial entry training (IET), also known as Basic Training. After Basic Training, soldiers go to their Advanced Individual Training (AIT) which teaches them the special skills they will need for their job in the Guard. These schools can usually be scheduled to accommodate civilian job or school constraints.

Training time is precious to Army National Guard soldiers. That's why the Guard uses many unique training methods. From "real-life" training exercises, like rotations at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California, to high-tech simulation training and distributed learning, the Army National Guard employs innovative training methods to give its members access to high quality training.

In the UK we have a similar problem with the territorial army being called into service in Iraq. The TA is mainly a reservist organisation and many of the soldiers have full time civilian jobs. Some of the TA sent to Basra recently had to have extra gun training, pretty basic stuff you'd think. They are certainly worried about being sent to the most dangerous country in the world but being soldiers put a brave face on it. We know that women's careers suffer after maternity breaks and we can expect the reservists to have similar problems on their return.

It certainly shows that the US and UK are overstretched with current military commitments. If another crisis does occur I'm not sure how the two countries will be able to respond, especially when Bush continues to alienate his allies.

just how many young men and women are rushing out to sign up since this war in iraq started? i hope that those of you who speak so kindly of bush, will run out right now and join up so to let the over long deployed soldiers get a chance to come home alive.

you speak of this war as if it has been over ,like bush said ,for months.! take your heads out of your.. and realize that this war started after our first rate military left, leaving most of the iraqis military to just become 'insurgents'! a nice term to use when you are dumb as a rock.

i cant understand why those arsenals of weapons and explosive werent destroyed immediately. if you were looking for WmD... wouldnt those be a potential threat also?
closing down the borders, wouldve been a major priority, and getting all the caches of weapons you could wouldve been also. bush and our military leaders once again let this nation and its soldiers down, but we dont want to discuss it for fear of being called unpatriotic. so wave the flag, cheer for bush, and dont dwell on our dead soldiers or the wounded or the mamed. they were expendable.


there was a clearly driven purpose to hunt and kill a certain man in a desolated country. we have failed to kill him and i for one feel less safe today because of that. if we cant find the leader of a terrorist grp, how can we win this war on terrorism(as if we can)?

EDIT:

Bah! changed my mind.

Lets all just be happy and eat much pie.