Mitt Romney got four deferrals to get out of fighting in Vietnam (Limbaugh, Iraq)
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.
When I was in Vietnam there were brave young Quakers who carried no weapon and had ID Cards marked "NON COMBATANT" who climbed into holes with us and cared for the wounded while we fought.His Cowardice is not the only reason I won't vote for him but it is a disqualifier
Yours is a perfectly fine opinion. Just remember that it is just that: an opinion. Meanwhile many voters are going to approach this election with the "what have you done for me lately" mentality and the actions of the candidates when they were 25 and under are going to be the furthest things from their minds.
Yours is a perfectly fine opinion. Just remember that it is just that: an opinion. Meanwhile many voters are going to approach this election with the "what have you done for me lately" mentality and the actions of the candidates when they were 25 and under are going to be the furthest things from their minds.
Why are you thinking for yourself? Don't you know it does matter that millions of people did not go to Vietnam, at least that's what the left want you to think.....does not matter what they were doing...
See, this is the typical leftist thinking. They have NOTHING else to run on, so they have to find "Stuff" to try to slam Romney, even if they have to go back almost 50 years.....
One very significant reason why this issue of Romney's deferrals is of significance nearly 50 years later has not been mentioned, I don't believe. And that is that his deferrals were to serve his religion first, over his choice to serve his nation.
I don't think there is anything wrong with this. I am not religious. However, I recognize that a person's spiritual commitment is a profound choice ... and I do respect people who stand for their commitments. Including draft dodgers if their reason was truly moral.
That all said, a Commander in Chief absolutely MUST be committed to his nation first, and be prepared and able to set all other personal issues and attachments aside in the decision-making and execution of actions that serve a huge, and hugely diverse, nation -- which nation will include many people with differing spiritual beliefs.
Romney has shown that, at least in his past, with regard to a very serious commitment, he chose serving his religion first. That bears at least fair exploration and discussion.
Now that all said -- he sure isn't going to get a "fair exploration and discussion" about it here on this forum, obviously
One very significant reason why this issue of Romney's deferrals is of significance nearly 50 years later has not been mentioned, I don't believe. And that is that his deferrals were to serve his religion first, over his choice to serve his nation.
I don't think there is anything wrong with this. I am not religious. However, I recognize that a person's spiritual commitment is a profound choice ... and I do respect people who stand for their commitments. Including draft dodgers if their reason was truly moral.
That all said, a Commander in Chief absolutely MUST be committed to his nation first, and be prepared and able to set all other personal issues and attachments aside in the decision-making and execution of actions that serve a huge, and hugely diverse, nation -- which nation will include many people with differing spiritual beliefs.
Romney has shown that, at least in his past, with regard to a very serious commitment, he chose serving his religion first. That bears at least fair exploration and discussion.
Now that all said -- he sure isn't going to get a "fair exploration and discussion" about it here on this forum, obviously
A solid point that hasn't been brought up previously. And a valid concern.
One very significant reason why this issue of Romney's deferrals is of significance nearly 50 years later has not been mentioned, I don't believe. And that is that his deferrals were to serve his religion first, over his choice to serve his nation.
I don't think there is anything wrong with this. I am not religious. However, I recognize that a person's spiritual commitment is a profound choice ... and I do respect people who stand for their commitments. Including draft dodgers if their reason was truly moral.
That all said, a Commander in Chief absolutely MUST be committed to his nation first, and be prepared and able to set all other personal issues and attachments aside in the decision-making and execution of actions that serve a huge, and hugely diverse, nation -- which nation will include many people with differing spiritual beliefs.
Romney has shown that, at least in his past, with regard to a very serious commitment, he chose serving his religion first. That bears at least fair exploration and discussion.
Now that all said -- he sure isn't going to get a "fair exploration and discussion" about it here on this forum, obviously
Usually liberals argue that religious rights can be protected against a draft or war -- starting with liberal Jeannette Rankin. I guess with Obama in the office, Democrats have been encouraged to flip on a lot of positions and values.
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.
Mitt Romney got four deferrals to get out of fighting in Vietnam
