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.
You implied that women that did serve were were somehow other than the norm, were to be discounted.
You cannot speak for women of that era as each woman was an individual. Did you know that MOST men did not serve either? Only a small percentage did. Since you continue to deny the truth, as you liberals tend to do, you continue to show denial of reality. Tell one of the women that died in Viet Nam that she did not count.
Clinton, either of them, felt that they were to special and entitled to serve and it show in the type of follower they gained. Your type always wants others that you choose to do the dirty work for you and then try fabricate stories about their actions. Never admit that you are wrong or just parsing the facts to suit your position.
As far as I am concerned, your postings are worthless and bigoted on this subject.
Go to your room and pout some more
Your beef with Bill Clinton has some basis in fact. He avoided what most men of his generation could not - being drafted to fight in Vietnam. Faulting Hillary for not serving is stupid. Women of her generation were not expected to serve and most did not. This is a fact. Period.
You cannot speak for what either Bill or Hillary Clinton felt/thought during the 60s, which is the era being discussed in this thread. Your type has a mindless, based on nonsense hate for anyone who doesn't agree with them, which mandates that I fall back on my message board #1 rule: Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Our conversation is, indeed, over.
Your beef with Bill Clinton has some basis in fact. He avoided what most men of his generation could not - being drafted to fight in Vietnam. Faulting Hillary for not serving is stupid. Women of her generation were not expected to serve and most did not. This is a fact. Period.
You cannot speak for what either Bill or Hillary Clinton felt/thought during the 60s, which is the era being discussed in this thread. Your type has a mindless, based on nonsense hate for anyone who doesn't agree with them, which mandates that I fall back on my message board #1 rule: Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Our conversation is, indeed, over.
Enjoy your bliss...
As usual, you claim to employ your mind reading abilities to tell us what the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, thought at the time and claim you speak the truth. You ignore the fact that most men did not serve either but that is alright with you. It becomes obvious that only as long as someone does what you think is acceptable it is good.
You are correct, I should never engage with someone who is unarmed because he will not accept a truth.
There is a lot of talk about "equal pay" on a gender basis and now women can serve in combat units in the military. Hillary Clinton wants to be elected commander in chief of our armed forces, yet she has never served a day in the military. It is true that she can't be called a draft dodger(like her husband) since women were not subject to the draft, but nothing prevented her from volunteering for military service during the Vietnam War. Why should we put her in charge of all U.S. servicemen and servicewomen when she wouldn't take the initiative to serve herself?
Unless Graham or Perry is GOP nominee (not going to happen), no other Republican has served in the military. So?
Can tell that you wouldn't have fought anywhere that would put you in personal danger.
dude, I'm a combat vet. It's a good chance I've seen more action than you.. But regardless, I'm not talking about avoiding harm, only talking about fighting for what's most important..
True, but both my opinion and thread title are normative in nature.
ALL opinions are normative in nature, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make ^^^.
For that matter, I'm not sure what point you tried to make with your title and OP. You've stated it's your opinion that all U.S. Presidents (how about Vice-Presidents?) should be military veterans. But for some heretofore unexplained reason, you've chosen to single out HRC. I suspect you'd rather argue about HRC's background than try to defend your proposed military service requirement because you know the latter is a non-starter.
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.
