Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And only while they are whole and still useful to the military. Once their usefulness is gone and they need long term care or services or help finding a job, the Republicans are happy to leave them to fend for themselves.
Romney is a case in point. He has floated the idea of privatizing the VA. Essentially, he would send our vets out with a voucher try to get care from private insurance companies. It's one of his ideas to cut government spending. Can't touch the bloated military budget because that's where all his wealthy contractor friends make their billions, but it's perfectly acceptable to cut the benefits of those who serve.
The VA? You speak of the VA as if it is shining jewel. I wouldnt use a VA hospital on a bet.
I remember back during the 2008 election, one of the common attacks or gripes (whichever you want to call it) that those who lean right leveled at Obama was his lack of military service. I saw many people (both on this forum and others) who openly stated that military service was something of a prerequisite for supporting a presidential candidate.
My question is, where did that all go during the GOP primaries? Only one of the GOP candidates (Rick Perry) had any military service to his credit, and the eventual nominee repeatedly used deferments to stay out of the draft. Was this all a political ploy, or do those of you who support Romney (or just voting against Obama) have any resentment over Romney's lack of military service?
As a Veteran, and a liberal, I do not resent Willard not having served. There are probably quite a few presidents and candidates for the office who have not served, but that does not make them any less qualified for the office.
He ordered the taking out of Bin Laden too.
Obama has that retaliatory attitude that if any American is harmed, he'll order a strike on a perpetrator.
Although some say Bush 43 was a draft dodger, that hasn't been proved. Had Bush 43 only went after the correct perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, people would probably have respected him, and would go down in history as a favorable president.
JFK who was a womanizer got the United States out of trouble by calling the Soviet Union's bluff, and I don't believe he would have held back either, I think if push came to shove, we would had WW3 under Kennedy's administration.
The political ploy? there just isn't any. People either like a person for their leader, or they don't. And, BTW, not all of the GOP back Willlard because they feel he doesn't accurately represent their values.
Reagan was a likeable person by both Dems. and Republican voters.
In the case of Willard, for every step forward he takes, he takes 2 steps back, he keeps shooting himself in the foot. He won't get away with that as a President, people won't like it.
I remember back during the 2008 election, one of the common attacks or gripes (whichever you want to call it) that those who lean right leveled at Obama was his lack of military service. I saw many people (both on this forum and others) who openly stated that military service was something of a prerequisite for supporting a presidential candidate.
My question is, where did that all go during the GOP primaries? Only one of the GOP candidates (Rick Perry) had any military service to his credit, and the eventual nominee repeatedly used deferments to stay out of the draft. Was this all a political ploy, or do those of you who support Romney (or just voting against Obama) have any resentment over Romney's lack of military service?
As a Vietnam era veteran, I would prefer Presidents have some active duty military service. If they expect to be elected to the position of Commander-In-Chief of the nation's military, he should at least know something about the military.
The primary difference between Republicans that have never served in the military and Democrats that have never served is that Republicans do not hold the military in disdain and utter contempt. That includes Obama and Clinton. Ironically, the one Democrat President that did serve in the military did more to harm the military and lower its morale than any President since, that would be Carter.
Reagan may not have served in the military, but he did restore military morale and cleaned up the mess Carter created in the military.
Normally, I would not even consider voting for Romney. Like Bush (43), Romney is a RINO. He is a big spending, big government liberal, pretending to be a Republican (like Perry). However, he is the GOP nominee and the only hope of unseating the POS currently holding the office. If Romney does nothing else besides not veto the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, I will consider him to be a sucessful President, despite his lack of military service.
I remember back during the 2008 election, one of the common attacks or gripes (whichever you want to call it) that those who lean right leveled at Obama was his lack of military service. I saw many people (both on this forum and others) who openly stated that military service was something of a prerequisite for supporting a presidential candidate.
My question is, where did that all go during the GOP primaries? Only one of the GOP candidates (Rick Perry) had any military service to his credit, and the eventual nominee repeatedly used deferments to stay out of the draft. Was this all a political ploy, or do those of you who support Romney (or just voting against Obama) have any resentment over Romney's lack of military service?
As a VERY RIGHT LEANING CONSERVATIVE VET, I DON'T CARE. And I know MANY others, who don't care.
If YOU want claim "all" people who lean right..., then you are not a reasonable person your self.
A couple, a few, sure, I'll give you that. But, to post this, only shows me you don't know what you are talking about.
I call BS. Other than from McCain supporters making a direct comparison between the two candidates, I don't recall any noteworthy "attacks or gripes" from the right about President Obama's lack of military service. Can you show us any proof of your claim?
Well admittedly, it would be quite the chore to go digging through forum posts for over 4 years ago. In fact if you run a search on this forum for "Obama + military + service" the earliest results you can find are from June of 2009.
The primary difference between Republicans that have never served in the military and Democrats that have never served is that Republicans do not hold the military in disdain and utter contempt. That includes Obama and Clinton.
I wanted to address this one here specifically. As we speak, I'm putting the finishing touching on a WOFT packet (application to the Army helicopter flight school, for those who don't know) and I've never had even the slightest feeling that the man I'm ultimately about to sign my life away to for 6 years (minimum) felt "disdain" for my chosen profession.
I wanted to address this one here specifically. As we speak, I'm putting the finishing touching on a WOFT packet (application to the Army helicopter flight school, for those who don't know) and I've never had even the slightest feeling that the man I'm ultimately about to sign my life away to for 6 years (minimum) felt "disdain" for my chosen profession.
Then you obviously have not been paying attention to the casualty rates in Afghanistan or the Rules of Engagement. Obama's goal is to get as many Americans killed as possible. In his first 18 months of office Obama had more KIAs in Afghanistan than Bush did in all eight years he was President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
