Who served?

[SOB]

SOP is an acronym for Standard Operating Procedure, ya stinkin' moonbat.

[greentail]

Originally posted by bustr
So greentail make a "point"??????? What exactly about the "Republican Leadership"? This is extreamly vauge. What is your investment in posting this???

In the deleted thread someone called the Democrats the anti-war party. I just thought that it was interesting that the anti-war party was made up of Viet-nam vets, while the leadership of the supposed pro-war party was made up of draft dodgers.

Cudos to all who served. The only lottery I ever won was the Vietnam draft lottery. Fortunately, it was the last one that got cancelled.

As for those who's only reply was insults, why not address the issue? Is the truth uncomfortable?

[SOB]

You didn't bring up any point to address.  You brought up a website, listing who did and didn't serve.  Frankly, I would prefer having all of my representatives being "anti-war", regardless of their military history.

[RedTop]

Zulu,

Though I doubt we will agree on most things...I would like to ask you justt a few questions in regards to this post you made...if you don't mind:)

"I don't care if they "served" or not."

 Isn't this important to you when making decisions that could effect a loved one of yours?
 
"just like I don't care who politicians shag, have affairs with, what they eat and all the other cr*p the media focuses on in order to mask us from the real issue, are they doing a good job?"

Aren't some things that politicians do important in making a decision on their a) moral standings in areas b) could such things affect their ability to do that"Good Job"

If anything the UK is worse for this. Scandal has replaced real argument.

" As far as I'm concerned the guy could be a animal sh*gger who ran away from a war and hid in a cave for all I care if the country is doing ok and the economy is good and the policies suit me I'll vote I don't care what happens in the guys private life or what he did before politics. CAN HE DO THE JOB? is all that matters."

 
Doesn't this statement sort of say a lot about the attitude of so many these days. That moral standards and things mean nothing. It sounds to me as if you are saying , and I could be wrong , that as long as it doesn't affect you that you don't care. IF that is so , then why bother to voice an opinion for others if you are really only interested in yourself. JUST MY OPINION.

[weaselsan]

I served but I didn't inhale....

[Zulu7]

Red top.

First off maybe the language was a tad strong. Apologies there.

All I'm saying is that in my opinion, these days the media focuses not on the politics but on the politician.

I'm sick to death of reading scandal about someones alleged private life and absolutely nothing about the real policies. If you've ever seen the majority of the UK newspapers you will understand.

We are fed an endless diet of people's sex lives, relationship breakups, meaningless drivel about minor stars personal goings on. We had one member of the Royal family hounded to death and it still continues.

What does it realy matter ifsomeone has served in the military or not? That is not an automatic qualification to be a good foreign policy maker, defence minister etc.

I just think people have a right to some kind of private life whoever they are.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Zulu7
Red top.

First off maybe the language was a tad strong. Apologies there.

All I'm saying is that in my opinion, these days the media focuses not on the politics but on the politician.

I'm sick to death of reading scandal about someones alleged private life and absolutely nothing about the real policies. If you've ever seen the majority of the UK newspapers you will understand.

We are fed an endless diet of people's sex lives, relationship breakups, meaningless drivel about minor stars personal goings on. We had one member of the Royal family hounded to death and it still continues.

What does it realy matter ifsomeone has served in the military or not? That is not an automatic qualification to be a good foreign policy maker, defence minister etc.

I just think people have a right to some kind of private life whoever they are.

Agree 100 percent.   Thanks

[greentail]

Originally posted by Eagler
this thread is so 2004

LOL LOL LOL

Truth is eternal, Eagler.

[Zulu7]

No probs sorry if I caused too much offense.

[Martlet]

Rather than look at greenhead's propaganda page, let's take a look at government's own demographics page for the 108th Congress, even BEFORE it was updated.

Looks a little difference than greenie's brainwash soup.

[RTStuka]

So how about them Eagles.

[Drunky]

Originally posted by greentail
n Zulu7's deleted thread about censorship, there was a discussion going on about Congressional and Executive branch leadership.

I had posted that the present Republican leadership  had not served in the military, while the Democratic congressional leadership had, as a whole, served.

A opposing post was made wih a link to a website listing the military records of the members of congress. It showed that many Republicans had served. True. Republicans love their country, too.

Which is fine, but that did not address the issue of Republican leadership. The link below helps to show my point.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Now you "conservatives" can commence your predictable attacks on Democratic veterans.

Why does it matter if the 'Republican leaders' haven't served as much as the 'Democratic congressional leadership'?

What is your point and why should I concern myself with your point?

I can name several Democratic 'leaders', not congressional leaders, that didn't serve in the armed forces but were COIC during wartime.

[john9001]

Abe Lincoln never "served", damm rightwing neo-con war monger, he invaded the Confederate States of America.


me? i was in the Marines.
44MAG

[RedTop]

No offense at all.

Private lives should be exactly that. However , when it DOES become public , then at that time , it should be dealt with.

I'll use this example.....

Clinton is found out to be getting "Favors" from an intern in the Oval Office. Now.....My problem with that is it is not becoming the President of the US for that to be happening in the Oval Office and he is married to boot. That I have a problem with. I'll just leave the rest of the stuff out.

Now he should have just fessed up and said yeah to all of it. Instead IMO he just made a fool of himself and runined his work in the White House over a "Favor"

So ...I agree with them having a private life. I agree the Media takes Cheap Shots , but , when you live that life you will have to face certain things if they ever find out some "Dirt" on ya.

[Zulu7]

They shouldn't be digging for dirt. They should be focusing on the question is this guy running the country well. That is the issue full stop for me. If he isn't then he should go. If he is then stay.

If the media weren't so obsessed with the dirt then we would never have been any wiser and the family could have dealt with it in their own way in their own time without all the nasty voyeristic rubbish that ensued. President or pauper these are still people.

The French laugh at the US and UK. I saw a guy from the French press being interviewed on our news the other day and he was saying that  he thinks that our press act like young teenagers who've discovered sex for the first time and are obsessed by it. In France they accept it as part of life. Fun yes beautiful yes but not that important compared to other things.

I think the French have a better attitude.