All little rich Republican boys... money can buy you anything... only thing.. I think we could probably make a list just the same for the Democrats..and I am Democrat.
What it does serve to prove tho, is that if you are rich and influential, you do not have to fight for your country. Oh you can sit behind a desk and make decisions for your country... you can send your gardeners son to war.. but you..nope, you don't have to go.
Tell me, how is this right. In this great country where we are all supposed to be equal.. how is this right.
When I hear Bush ( or any other politician, for that matter ) stand at a memorial or making a speech about veterans or military, say that these brave men and women gladly gave their lives for their country... it makes me sick.. how in hell would he or any other wealthy politician know... just how would they know. What did they give, besides their time.. and they were very very well compensated for that.
Makes you wonder why we are trying to free another country so they can be like us. The rich get richer and the poor get to work and fight.....I think Iraq had that already.. in America.. we just dress it up better.
2007-06-04 05:49:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Debra H 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
Excellent. Some idiot troll this morning asked about Ted Kennedy's service, as if Kennedy's lack thereof would have been somehow enough to mitigate the lack of service by the chickenhawks. (Turns out Kennedy did indeed serve as an enlisted man in the Army, 1951-1953.) Cheney is on record as saying he didn't serve in Vietnam because he had "other priorities."
2007-06-04 05:52:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I read Arkin's piece and I do not agree with him on most points, especially the aforementioned. However, it seems to me that the current attitude towards soldiers is a great improvement over what happened during Vietnam. I don't believe that if you support the soldiers in Iraq, you must support the war itself. The soldiers are doing their job best they can, the policy of the war has nothing to do with them. They are not naive, nor are they mercenaries. It is far better to have people who oppose the war treat them with respect rather than blame the soldiers for doing their job.
2016-05-21 01:50:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you work at it you could probably come up with a list of Democrats who did not serve in the military. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bill andHillary Clinton come to mind. But I don't think serving in the military has much influence as to whether that person is fit to be president. One of our greatest presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was confined to a wheel chair because of polio, never served in the military but guided us through WWII. At the same time, one of our worst presidents with an approval rating(21%) lower than Dubya's was Jimmy Carter who served in the military (Navy) longer than any other president. Bush's critics put him down because he joined the Texas Air National Guard and never saw action in Vietnam. Do people criticise Abraham Lincoln who was a member of the Illinois state militia who never saw action in the Black Hawk Indian War? As far as I can tell, the only person who was in the military and was really a hero was Bob Dole. No phoney purple hearts like Kerry and Murtha. Bob Dole lost the use of his left arm in Italy (WWII) while attempting to drag a wounded comrad to safety. Bob Dole lost the 1996 election to that draft dodging scumbag Bill Clinton. Did you vote for Clinton?
With regards to Ted Kennedy's military "service". After Ted got kicked out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam, he felt sorry for himself and enlisted in the army for 4 years. His father, Joe Kennedy, was furious, and used his political influence to reduce Teddy's 4 year enlistment to only 2 years. Papa Joe also arranged to have Teddy stationed in Paris France where he could do what he was best suited for - wine and women. Teddy never did make it to the front in Korea.
2007-06-04 06:25:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Hypocrisy is a legitimate political philosophy.
2007-06-04 05:46:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4
·
5⤊
1⤋
This proves that the basic tenet of republicanism is hypocrisy.
But, it might be important to talk about John McCain as well. Even with his war experience he is still a hawk - still trying to win the hearts of the vast Americans that want to kill, kill, kill.
2007-06-04 05:48:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by micahcf 3
·
5⤊
4⤋
You will have an equally long list of Dems who didn't serve it is the way of the entitled......
always has been always will be....
the RICH don't serve they are served.....
I serve my family and my community...after that all bets are off
2007-06-04 05:45:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by penydred 6
·
4⤊
3⤋
John McCain: Conservative Republican, Vietnam Vet and next President of the United States of America.
2007-06-04 05:46:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by BRICK 3
·
2⤊
6⤋
Let us not forget the following statement about our troops by democrats
Kerry- they are dumb, terrrorist, all the murders the did to civilians in Vietnam, threw away medals
Dubin - Nazis
Murtha-cold blooded murders
Obama-the dead oh there lives were wasted
How about that fine liberal who spit on the troops.
I rather have someone who didn't serve show respect for our troops than one who served and smear their names.
To those who gave me the thumbs down please be so kind to explain to me why democrats can smear the troops.
Please how liberals were all over Abu Grabi when it was an isolated case.
Liberals have call our troops raptists when there very few cases were reported and are doing time.
So don't give me this liberals like the troops.
2007-06-04 05:48:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
7⤋
Bravo!
2007-06-04 05:43:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋