I think we should. We're either with them or against them. These two spoiled trollops are busy partying instead of killing those who "hate freedom", so, what other conclusion could one possibly draw?
2006-09-15 11:30:05 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First off, I think it's safe to say that we shouldn't listen to bimbettes who post pictures of their tragically big-bottomed faces on Yahoo Answers. I think that's a given.
Secondly, who said anything about an all-volunteer force? I am simply using the 'yardstick' by which the Bushvotes of America, Inc. (yes, they have a lock on stupidity) measure everything. Anyone up for a 'swift-boating'?
Freakzilla, you have just given me one of the best laughs I've had all evening, but you are too ignorant to know it, and FLAUNTED IT, no less! Typical frighty. ONLY IN THE POSSESSIVE PLURAL WOULD IT BE THE BUSH'S, IDIOT. To refer to the whole sad-@*** family, not in the possessive, it's simply the Bushes. Dumb-@***, look it up.
2006-09-15 12:09:01 · update #1
No, Will. I'm simply suggesting that, judging by fright-wing Repugnician rhetoric, and assuming this terminally stupid 'man' has raised his daughters in a manner befitting such a gung-ho 'patriot', that logic suggests they should be in Iraq. By the way, you're just like the rest of the fright-wing goofballs: "siting" 'facts'. LMAO!!! It's 'citing', dumb@ss! You're all idiots:-(
2006-09-15 15:22:52 · update #2
I often wondered that myself. But, what can you expect. Their father didn't serve, so I suppose that's the example they're following.
2006-09-15 11:46:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Just like a Liberal with the personal attacks. And you're blind at that. In any case, Bush responded to 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan, then attacked Iraq for other legitimate reasons. Siting the fact that the Army is all-volunteer highlights the fact that his daughters had the free will to either join or not. Are you seriously suggesting that Bush FORCE his two daughters into the military in order to justify the war to you?
2006-09-15 19:30:32 · answer #2 · answered by Will 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That they simply don't want to get killed by the terrorists, so will stay in safety. And also, maybe that they didn't want to join the army in the first place, considering this is not a draft war, as we have plenty of troops, we could also assume that any children of democrats not being in the army says that those families are terrorist-loving. You can't equate the Bush family with terrorists just because their daughters aren't in the army. They wouldn't be in the heat of the war anyway, because the army has laws about that.
2006-09-15 18:34:35 · answer #3 · answered by The Crow 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well lets see... they are the wealthy daughters of the President of the United States currently attending college.
Oh yea, seeing as how we have an elective military right now the people that choose to be in it are in it. Seeing as how the Bush girls are probably pretty intelligent, they chose not to be in the military so as to avoid situations where they could die.
There is nothing suprising about this, and this is not an argument against the war in Iraq. Because some politicians children chose not to be in the military, doesn't mean the war is wrong.
Now I dont think the war is right, but I also think your logic is flawed and sensationalitic crap much like fat *** Michael Moore's.
2006-09-15 18:33:52 · answer #4 · answered by Allen G 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
This war doesn't have a draft. If it did, we'd all be in Iraq now, including them. We have a volunteer military, and no one is obligated to join the military. The military is a life long job. My brother's a marine, and after 8 more years, he can either sign up for some more years or retire. Are you Jenna and Barbara's manager or something? Let them live their own lives. Go to Iraq yourself.
2006-09-15 18:35:36 · answer #5 · answered by redneckgal 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I guess you haven't heard that it's a volunteer army, not a draft, so whoever is in the military wants to be there. Militaries are created to fight so anybody who signed up should have realized it was possible to go to war. Nonetheless, if you send Chelsea to prove that your family loves freedom, I'll have a talk with George and see what I can do.
2006-09-15 18:34:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
How about, what officer or even enlisted leader would want to try and manage the Presidents daughters?. The security alone would disrupt all operations and get in the way of the mission. The only conclusion I drew was how infantile you are.
2006-09-15 18:36:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
yes you are right , everybody that is not in iraq love and support terrorist , and yes we should assume the bush's ( by the way this is how you would correctly type a last name in the plural form ) are terrorist , why wouldn't we , what has george done to stop them , nothing i can think of , it's not like he started a war against them . so you are not an idiot at all , seems like you know exactly what you are talking about
2006-09-15 18:36:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hillary, you should be shipped one way ticket to Iraq...
You destroyed Mr. Clinton by allowing Monica and others to see your husband, while you were seeing others of the same sex...
You are a bad person...
2006-09-15 18:34:51 · answer #9 · answered by skystriker65 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Don't worry Hillary, last time i saw them i caught slick willie hiding behind the shrubs pleasuring himself while watching them.
Yuo gots to keep an eye on him, he's wanderin' again.
2006-09-15 21:21:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋