Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/10/2004 5:49:26 AM EST
Here's a list of Republicans who should have served in Viet Nam but didn't. It was published in the newspaper today. I'm sure the list of high ranking Democrats is just as long, its just that the paper didn't print that today.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rowe, John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, Andrew Card, Tom Delay.

How do we let ourselves get in a position where we are governed by people who have not served? I could see one or two of the top guys not having served but this many?

And as I said, the Democrat's list is probably just as long.

It just goes to show they all want the power to send someone else and someone else's kid to die for their country while they sit protected.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:54:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:02:28 AM EST
Don't be silly. You are exposing your Heinleinian politics.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:05:41 AM EST
Not only that, but consider this angle.
How did Vietnam go from a village-burning, baby-killing war to "If you didn't serve there, you are BAD!"
All these people making a huge deal about GWB not serving are hypocrites. They protested and spat on returning GIs while evading the draft and a bath.
Why is service in Vietnam so valued now, when it was hated for so long?
Stinking Hypocrites, down to a man.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:15:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 6:16:58 AM EST by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By jimb100:
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rowe, John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, Andrew Card, Tom Delay.





I do find it troubling and disturbing that many of these men are now the so called "war hawks" of our current administration. Funny, they weren't so eager to place their own ass on the line when it was their turn. I do think it should be a requirement to have served your country before you can ask others to lay their lives on the line. The Iraq war was very personal to serveral of these men. Several of them went above and beyond their normal duties to convince the Amercian people to invade Iraq. Hell, several of them including our President even lied or at the very least streched/ignored the truth to get the war they wanted. I personally don't think anyone should have the power to ask other Americans to risk their lives when they avoided doing it themselves.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:23:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Not only that, but consider this angle.
How did Vietnam go from a village-burning, baby-killing war to "If you didn't serve there, you are BAD!"
All these people making a huge deal about GWB not serving are hypocrites. They protested and spat on returning GIs while evading the draft and a bath.
Why is service in Vietnam so valued now, when it was hated for so long?Stinking Hypocrites, down to a man.



Because the Democrats are trying to use it to get votes, plain and simple. They will use anything they can, and will compromise all principle (yeah like they ever had any) to get votes. One year they are sitting before Congress completely against Vietnam and another year they are proud they served. Hypocrites...every last one of them.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:24:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Funny, they weren't so eager to place their own ass on the line when it was their turn.

Turn? Wow, that's connecting some widely spaced dots... Did I avoid my "turn" by not running to my nearest recruiting office when I turned 18?


I do think it should be a requirement to have served your country before you can ask others to lay their lives on the line.
You too have a Heinlienian streak. Technically, all the above men are currently serving their country.

It sounds like you may even believe that civilian control of the military is a bad thing? "What we really meant, was that a civilian who was combat vet should always be in control, yeah, that's it..."

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:26:07 AM EST
Kerry and the democrats are lowlife scum for exploiting a war they resisted until it ended and then turned their backs on the people who fought that war. They don't fool me a damn bit. FUCK THEM!!!
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:26:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 6:27:28 AM EST by motown_steve]
Might I remind you dingbats that the second toughest President we have had this century (Teddy Roosevelt being the toughest) made training films for the Army during WWII. But as President he single handedly defeated Communism, bombed the snot out of Libya, and set this nations policy of not dealing with Terrorists.

Of course I'm referring to Ronald Reagan.

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:28:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Kerry and the democrats are lowlife scum for exploiting a war they resisted until it ended and then turned their backs on the people who fought that war. They don't fool me a damn bit. FUCK THEM!!!



And let's not forget that after Vietnam, John "Rambo" Kerry came home with flowers in his hair!

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:38:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Turn? Wow, that's connecting some widely spaced dots... Did I avoid my "turn" by not running to my nearest recruiting office when I turned 18?



No, but your also not in a position to ask others to risk their lives based on your decisions.


Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
You too have a Heinlienian streak. Technically, all the above men are currently serving their country.



Please don't place what you consider to be a negative label on me becuase I disagree with you. I also do not consider being a millionaire politician safe in Washington to be the in the same ballpark as to what other Amercians have done in WWII, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Gulf War 2, Etc. To state that it is an unjustice to those of us that have serve


Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
It sounds like you may even believe that civilian control of the military is a bad thing? "What we really meant, was that a civilian who was combat vet should always be in control, yeah, that's it..."




As I stated before, I do believe you should be a vetran before you can lead others into harms way.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:05:06 AM EST
So let's see....when I graduated HS in 1993, I was (and still am) legally blind in my right eye, almost so in my left (with corrective lenses, it never affected my shooting or any other function in life) and had one leg shorter than the other, which is slowly leading to hip problems. The military didn't want me, and considering the CiC at the time, I didn't push the issue.

So, in your mind this makes me unfit as a leader? heck, if someone would square away my financial affairs here, I'd get on a plane TONIGHT and jump out over Iraq when we got there. All I'd ask is a parachute, M4, and a canteen. Now, obviously, the Mil. doesn't want or need me to do that, but the point is, if needed, I would. I would imagine there are thousands of others like me.

I also propose that Mil. service per se does not make one a fit candidate for POTUS, though it certainly does not hurt.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:06:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Might I remind you dingbats that the second toughest President we have had this century (Teddy Roosevelt being the toughest) made training films for the Army during WWII. But as President he single handedly defeated Communism, bombed the snot out of Libya, and set this nations policy of not dealing with Terrorists.

Of course I'm referring to Ronald Reagan.




Right on all counts!
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:32:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
So let's see....when I graduated HS in 1993, I was (and still am) legally blind in my right eye, almost so in my left (with corrective lenses, it never affected my shooting or any other function in life) and had one leg shorter than the other, which is slowly leading to hip problems. The military didn't want me, and considering the CiC at the time, I didn't push the issue.

So, in your mind this makes me unfit as a leader?




Exactly! If you have not served and at least had the potenial to be in harms way, you are unfit to order others to risk their lives.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:33:35 AM EST
Well, maybe you should move to another country where the majority hold that view.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:36:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Well, maybe you should move to another country where the majority hold that view.



Personally, I think the majority of Americans prefer a Vet be Commander in Chief. I also don't need to MOVE anywhere, I've served my country.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:43:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Well, maybe you should move to another country where the majority hold that view.



Personally, I think the majority of Americans prefer a Vet be Commander in Chief. I also don't need to MOVE anywhere, I've served my country.



So you're the I-served-so-my-opinion-counts-and-yours-doesn't type, huh?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:54:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Well, maybe you should move to another country where the majority hold that view.



Personally, I think the majority of Americans prefer a Vet be Commander in Chief. I also don't need to MOVE anywhere, I've served my country.



So you're the I-served-so-my-opinion-counts-and-yours-doesn't type, huh?



No, not at all. I just feel strongly on this issue.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 8:01:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Well, maybe you should move to another country where the majority hold that view.



Personally, I think the majority of Americans prefer a Vet be Commander in Chief. I also don't need to MOVE anywhere, I've served my country.



No offense to anyone who served, but I think John Kerry pretty much disproves the idea that vetrans are better equipped to make decisions about the use of military force. Another great example is Jimmy Carter, who (I have heard) served 10 years in the Navy, and was responsible for the most embarassing US Military operation since the Vietnam War (the "attempted" rescue of the hostages in the US embassy in Iran).

Besides, the last thing I would wanted is some Vet in oval office thinking about the horrors of Vietnam before deciding to invade Afghanistan!
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 8:42:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Besides, the last thing I would wanted is some Vet in oval office thinking about the horrors of Vietnam before deciding to invade Afghanistan!


Vet? Politician? Ummm, John McCain? No thanks!
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 8:54:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Well, maybe you should move to another country where the majority hold that view.



Personally, I think the majority of Americans prefer a Vet be Commander in Chief. I also don't need to MOVE anywhere, I've served my country.

You are entitled to your opinion, but WOW...

Congress makes federal laws, so should having been a lawyer at some point, be a qualification for congressional office?

A candidate being a vet (combat or pencil pusher), can be one of the things considered by voters when evaluating a potential officeholder. However, it is far from the only thing that should be considered. If this was the case, Kerry far outshines Bush. If that is a big deal to you, you know who to vote for. Something tells me you will vote differently though.

What you've tapped into here, is a monthly debate about the value of service ah la, are vets entitled to 'better' treatment than others. Don't take it personally, it's not meant that way. That particular debate is quite entertaining, but it's been done as much as 'what was the gun in Heat'.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 8:57:50 AM EST
For the record, vets, as a whole, have my respect moreso than any other group in the world. Given the choice between 2 candidates of equal abilities, if one was a vet, he'll get my vote, every time. However, being a vet does not automatically qualify you for office. In addition, I think it's fair to say that the vets we'd all like to see as CiC are usually the same ones who wouldn't want the job.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:21:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 9:22:15 AM EST by Dave_A]
Bush was at least in the service, period.

I don't remember him joining the ANG because of draft considerations - he did it because he wanted to fly.

Now our LAST President, who went to EVERY extreme to avoid service, HE is the one to complain about...

As for Card, Rove, & the other advisory appointees, they are merely sideliners... What they did is irrelevant, what they do now is what matters...
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:30:07 AM EST
Question VA, questionS I suppose:

Why exactly do you believe you are smarter than the Founding Fathers who wrote the rules in the first place?

Do you believe yourself to be or not? Don't you think if they thought that should have been a consideration they would have made it so?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:34:06 AM EST
Aside from the political commentary on this page, it does list the correct service records of prominent politicains on both sides of the isle:

Who Served?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:35:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
Aside from the political commentary on this page, it does list the correct service records of prominent politicains on both sides of the isle:

Who Served?



You expect us to click on a link to a site called awolbush.com? What agenda are YOU pushing?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:36:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Bush was at least in the service, period.

I don't remember him joining the ANG because of draft considerations - he did it because he wanted to fly.



This has been discussed in the past. If we wanted to just fly, why the National Guard? Could it possibly be the lower chances of being shipped off to Vietnam? I also found it funny that he checked NO for the "Volunter For Overseas Duty" question on his National Guard application. Personally, it looks like avoiding possible duty in Vietnam to me.


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Now our LAST President, who went to EVERY extreme to avoid service, HE is the one to complain about...



Clinton was certianly wrong also. Maybe he just did not have a Senator grandfather to pull enough strings to get him into the NG.


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
As for Card, Rove, & the other advisory appointees, they are merely sideliners... What they did is irrelevant, what they do now is what matters...



I would agree with you except for their positions as "war hawks" in the current administration. Why didn't they do their part when it was their chance? Now that its somebody's elses life to risk their all for it.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:37:52 AM EST
Dislike polititicians? Well, better get used to the idea. Would you rather have a dictator? Our political system is the best that the world has ever and will ever know. Of course it is not perfect because it is a creation of humans. The problem lies with a populace that is not too concerned about govt. People know more about various sports figures than they do there own govt.

Just think for a moment, of all the people who are eligible to vote, how many are actually registered/ Maybe 50%. Of the ones that is registered to vote, how many actually vote in an election? 50%(and that is a high), more typically its around 20-30%. So there you have it, <25%(actually around 10%) of the people actually tell the other 90% what to do. Sad, sad.

What about jury duty, govta have to threaten the general populace with jail time and fines in order to get a randomly selection of jurors for a jury trial. Its says it right in the U.S. Constitution, "you have the right ot a jury trial selected from your peers."

Bottom line is that people whine about how lousy our form of govt is but do nothing participate in or to improve it.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:42:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
Aside from the political commentary on this page, it does list the correct service records of prominent politicains on both sides of the isle:

Who Served?



You expect us to click on a link to a site called awolbush.com? What agenda are YOU pushing?



Looks like the exact opposite of the agenda you push so heavily.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:44:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
Aside from the political commentary on this page, it does list the correct service records of prominent politicains on both sides of the isle:

Who Served?



You expect us to click on a link to a site called awolbush.com? What agenda are YOU pushing?



Looks like the exact opposite of the agenda you push so heavily.



And what agenda is that? Did I piss in your cheerios because I don't agree with you that Mil. service should be a pre-req for CiC? So you're voting for Kerry, I guess?

Get a life.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:48:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
Dislike polititicians? Well, better get used to the idea. Would you rather have a dictator?



Someone does.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98)

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator,"- George W. Bush (12/18/2000 CNN.com)

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said. 7/27/ 2001 Associated Press

"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush, Associated Press 05/21/ 1999
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 9:53:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
And what agenda is that? Did I piss in your cheerios because I don't agree with you that Mil. service should be a pre-req for CiC? So you're voting for Kerry, I guess?

Get a life.



I'm certianly no Kerry supporter. I also do not blindly follow the current administration either. They have made plenty of mistakes and have more than a fair ammount of corruption as well. I'll be watching the issues that matter to me and voting with my brain when November arrives. I won't be voting for anybody just to fit in on a internet forum. By the way, I have a very good life.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:00:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
And what agenda is that? Did I piss in your cheerios because I don't agree with you that Mil. service should be a pre-req for CiC? So you're voting for Kerry, I guess?

Get a life.



I'm certianly no Kerry supporter. I also do not blindly follow the current administration either. They have made plenty of mistakes and have more than a fair ammount of corruption as well. I'll be watching the issues that matter to me and voting with my brain when November arrives. I won't be voting for anybody just to fit in on a internet forum. By the way, I have a very good life.



Amazingly, I agree with you, and have stated such on this forum numerous times. But we both know (so it would seem) that Bush is infinitely better than Kerry on so many levels. So it seems odd that when someone directs us to an anti-bush site, you defend him? whatever.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:19:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 10:19:51 AM EST by TomJefferson]
Shit and I thought you were going to say they breathe.

I say re-elect all the dead politicians. Then we would have a government to be proud of. They wouldn't pass a single law we would disagree with and ban nothing.

If dead people can vote in Chicago, why not hold office.

Tj
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:24:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
Shit and I thought you were going to say they breathe.

I say re-elect all the dead politicians. Then we would have a government to be proud of. They wouldn't pass a single law we would disagree with and ban nothing.

If dead people can vote in Chicago, why not hold office.

Tj



Dead people voting in chicago? wtf? Tell me more.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:36:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Well, maybe you should move to another country where the majority hold that view.



Personally, I think the majority of Americans prefer a Vet be Commander in Chief. I also don't need to MOVE anywhere, I've served my country.



So you're the I-served-so-my-opinion-counts-and-yours-doesn't type, huh?



No, not at all. I just feel strongly on this issue.



That's your problem right there. You 'feel'. No thinking required when you feel strongly.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:49:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
But we both know (so it would seem) that Bush is infinitely better than Kerry on so many levels.



I never said anything even remotely like that!



Originally Posted By arowneragain:
So it seems odd that when someone directs us to an anti-bush site, you defend him? whatever.



I was not defending him, but I do like to see both sides of an issue.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:52:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
But we both know (so it would seem) that Bush is infinitely better than Kerry on so many levels.



I never said anything even remotely like that!



Originally Posted By arowneragain:
So it seems odd that when someone directs us to an anti-bush site, you defend him? whatever.



I was not defending him, but I do like to see both sides of an issue.




Oh, so you think kerry's the man for the job. I'm truly sorry to hear that. And if you weren't defending him, I guess you just felt like attacking me. Tsk, tsk.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:56:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
But we both know (so it would seem) that Bush is infinitely better than Kerry on so many levels.



I never said anything even remotely like that!



Originally Posted By arowneragain:
So it seems odd that when someone directs us to an anti-bush site, you defend him? whatever.



I was not defending him, but I do like to see both sides of an issue.




Oh, so you think kerry's the man for the job. I'm truly sorry to hear that. And if you weren't defending him, I guess you just felt like attacking me. Tsk, tsk.



I have no idea why you would consider any of my statements an "attack" on you. If you took them that way, I'm sorry it was not my intent.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:02:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

I have no idea why you would consider any of my statements an "attack" on you. If you took them that way, I'm sorry it was not my intent.



I questioned the motives of someone who felt it appropriate to link to 'facts' on a website full of hate for our current president. I think this is where things started...no, wait, we had that disagreement over the .mil service of GWB....well, I guess we started by disagreeing on the same subject on 2 different threads....at any rate, no apology is needed. Have a good day.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:26:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

I have no idea why you would consider any of my statements an "attack" on you. If you took them that way, I'm sorry it was not my intent.



I questioned the motives of someone who felt it appropriate to link to 'facts' on a website full of hate for our current president. I think this is where things started...no, wait, we had that disagreement over the .mil service of GWB....well, I guess we started by disagreeing on the same subject on 2 different threads....at any rate, no apology is needed. Have a good day.



I guess you didn't read the disclaimer before the URL I posted......

I was just looking for a list online of current politiicans service records and that was the most complete one I could find.

I think aside from the political commmentary ont he page, it is factually accurate about the service records.

RELAX!!!!
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:29:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

I have no idea why you would consider any of my statements an "attack" on you. If you took them that way, I'm sorry it was not my intent.



I questioned the motives of someone who felt it appropriate to link to 'facts' on a website full of hate for our current president. I think this is where things started...no, wait, we had that disagreement over the .mil service of GWB....well, I guess we started by disagreeing on the same subject on 2 different threads....at any rate, no apology is needed. Have a good day.



I guess you didn't read the disclaimer before the URL I posted......

I was just looking for a list online of current politiicans service records and that was the most complete one I could find.

I think aside from the political commmentary ont he page, it is factually accurate about the service records.

RELAX!!!!



You're a suspected liberal troll. Suspected, I say. Therefore, you'll get a little closer scrutiny than most. Hence my original post.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:40:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
You're a suspected liberal troll. Suspected, I say. Therefore, you'll get a little closer scrutiny than most. Hence my original post.



I resent the troll label. My leanings are more to left on a lot of issues, but I am 100% for gun rights.

I have never made a pro-Kerry argument on this forum and try to keep from offending anyone when making a post like I did earlier on this thread. Trolls start shit for no apparent reason and never have useful info to add to discussions. I feel like the link I posted was germaine to the topic and I added a disclaimer for those who might be offended.

If you can find a better, more inclusive list of our politician's service records, I would be very interested to see it. As stated, that was the most complete one I could find.

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 3:21:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:You're a suspected liberal troll. Suspected, I say. Therefore, you'll get a little closer scrutiny than most. Hence my original post.


The 'net monitor !

['net monitor] I will be watching you and if you even walk on the left side of the street, you are mine ! [/'net monitor]

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:47:51 PM EST
I believe my original point has been lost. I'll try again, at risk of wearing everyone out.

I'm OK with people of this age group not serving in Viet Nam. A couple here and there, a mix of those who didn't and those who did. Thats fine. A person should be electable even if they didn't serve.

Among prominant politicians, however, finding someone who served is rare. Finding someone who had a rich or influential daddy who served is damn near impossible.

I sense a pattern of behavior here. Those running the show get to not risk theirs or their children's lives while other do. Colin Powell served, but is conveniently out of the picture now. Coincidence?

This type of behavior is wrong and should be punished at the polls. Bush, I believe, has more blacks and women in his inner circle than Viet Nam veterans, or Korean war veterans or veterans who served in combat in any war.

Somewhere, a value must be placed on service to this country. Service that does not result in the individual becoming a multi-millionaire.
Top Top